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
PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF, A MALE EMT, ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED BECAUSE OF HIS INVOLVEMENT IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AND SEVERAL FEMALE EMT’S WERE INVOLVED IN COMPARABLE ACCIDENTS BUT WERE NOT TERMINATED; PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEX DISCRIMINATION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS DEFENDANT COMPANY’S EMPLOYEE AND WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT COMPANY FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DRIVER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE; THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT USES THE TERM “INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR” IS NOT DISPOSITIVE OF THE ISSUE (SECOND DEPT). ​
School Failed to Demonstrate Assault on Student Was Unforeseeable—Summary Judgment Properly Denied
PLAINTIFF APPARENTLY SLIPPED AND FELL BECAUSE OF LEAVES ON THE STAIRWAY; THE CONDITION WAS NOT BOTH “OPEN AND OBVIOUS” AND “NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS” AS A MATTER OF LAW; PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE IN DESCENDING THE STAIRWAY FURNISHED THE OCCASION FOR THE ACCIDENT, BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
A CORPORATION’S REGISTRATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE IS NO LONGER DEEMED CONSENT TO BE SUED IN NEW YORK, FORD’S AND GOODYEAR’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SUIT STEMMED FROM A ROLLOVER ACCIDENT IN VIRGINIA (SECOND DEPT).
MATTER REMITTED FOR A REOPENED SUPPRESSION HEARING BASED UPON NEW EVIDENCE THAT THE VEHICLE STOP MAY HAVE BEEN BASED UPON INFORMATION FROM AN ANONYMOUS BYSTANDER (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT-PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO RELEASE FROM PRE-INDICTMENT CUSTODY PURSUANT TO CPL 30.30 (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 © 2026 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...