You are here: / / THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH...
,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; I.E., THE NOTICE MUST BE MAILED IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE WITH NO OTHER MATERIALS, AND THE NOTICE MUST BE SENT SEPARATELY TO EACH BORROWER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff did not comply with the RPAPL 1304 requirements that the 90-day notice of foreclosure be mailed in a separate envelope and that the notice be sent separately to both borrowers:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish … that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304, since additional material was sent in the same envelope as the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304 … , and a single notice was jointly addressed to both defendants … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v DiBenedetti, 2022 NY Slip Op 02983, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: RPAPL 1304, which must be strictly complied with by the bank in any foreclosure action, requires (1) that the 90-day notice of foreclosure be sent in a separate envelope which includes nothing else and (2) that the 90-day notice be sent separately to each borrower.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GROUNDS; DEFENDANT AVERRED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
Candidate Designating Petition Deemed Invalid Due to Fraud (Unwitnessed Signatures)
MOTION PAPERS WERE MAILED TO DEFENDANT 20, NOT 21, DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, THEREFORE THE CROSS MOTION, SERVED SIX DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​
Strictly Construing the Policy, Falling Through a Defective Manhole (Located in the Parking Lot) Into the Building’s Septic System Was Not Subject to the “Parking Lot” Exclusion from Coverage—The Claim Did Not Arise from the “Ownership, Maintenance or Use” of the Parking Lot, But Rather Arose from the “Operations Necessary or Incidental” to the Insured Building
ASSIGNMENT OF AN INTEREST IN A JUDGMENT WAS VALID EVEN THOUGH THE PARTY WHO PAID THE ASSIGNOR HAD NOT BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE ASSIGNMENT, PAYMENT MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO THE ASSIGNOR TREATED AS IF MADE TO THE ASSIGNEE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS IN DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, SHE STILL CAN CONTEST THE AMOUNT OWED; THE REFEREE’S REPORT HERE WAS REJECTED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED IN PART ON UNPRODUCED BUSINESS RECORDS AND THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR RECALCULATION (SECOND DEPT).
Building With One Retail Unit and Two Apartments, One of Which Was Owner-Occupied, Did Not Qualify for the Homeowner’s Exemption from Liability Under the Labor Law
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF OR CREATE THE ICY CONDITION, THEIR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS.

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

TO CHALLENGE THE BANK’S STANDING TO FORECLOSE THE DEFENDANT MUST ASSERT... THE BANK’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT LAY A SUFFICIENT...