You are here: / / THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SENT THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE TO BOTH...
,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SENT THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE TO BOTH BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE, A VIOLATION OF THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The bank did not comply with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304, specifically the “separate envelope for each borrower” rule:

…[T]he plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. Although the plaintiff demonstrated that it mailed the RPAPL 1304 notice to the defendants by both certified and first-class mail … , and that the contents of the notice complied with RPAPL 1304(1), the plaintiff failed to establish that it sent a 90-day notice individually addressed to each defendant in separate envelopes, as required by the statute … . Instead, as the plaintiff concedes, the notice was mailed in a single envelope jointly to both defendants. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Loayza, 2022 NY Slip Op 02392, Second Dept 4-13-22

​Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, the RPAPL 1304 notice must be sent in a separate envelope to each borrower.

 

You might also like
TOWN DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF A RUSTY DRAINAGE PIPE IN THE WATER AT A TOWN BEACH AND WAS THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR THE INJURY TO THE INFANT PLAINTIFF WHO CUT HIS FOOT ON THE PIPE WHEN WALKING IN THE WATER (SECOND DEPT). ​
INJURIES STEMMING FROM FAILURE TO RESTRAIN A PATIENT WITH DEMENTIA FALL UNDER THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S REMARKS DURING SUMMATION DEPRIVED DEFENDANT RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY OF A FAIR TRIAL; OVER $1 MILLION JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE/PUBLIC-HEALTH-LAW ACTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DISFAVORED, DISCLOSURE OF REDACTED TAX RETURNS WAS WARRANTED IN THIS CASE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS STANDING ON AN A-FRAME LADDER WHEN IT SHIFTED CAUSING A CONCRETE SLAB TO FALL ON HIS HAND; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; IN ADDITION A DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW IT WAS NOT AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE TWO CHILDREN IN ITS PLACEMENT DECISION; STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT WEARING A HARD HAT AND WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD BY DEBRIS DURING DEMOLITION WORK; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE HEAD PROTECTION VIOLATED THE INDUSTRIAL CODE GIVING RISE TO A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE JOB WAS NOT A HARD HAT JOB; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION SEEKING OVERTIME PAY IN FEDERAL COURT ON THE GROUND NO NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS FILED DID NOT PRECLUDE, PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA, AN ACTION IN SUPREME COURT SEEKING PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF SUED BOTH THE COUNTY AND THE SHERIFF FOR ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINATED... HERE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY OFFERED A DETAILED, CREDIBLE EXPLANATION OF...