You are here: / / THE BANK DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER IT VIOLATED THE...
,

THE BANK DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER IT VIOLATED THE SEPARATE-ENVELOPE RULE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants demonstrated the bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304, which requires the notice of foreclosure be mailed in a separate envelope which includes nothing else:

… [T]he defendants established that the plaintiff failed to strictly comply with RPAPL 1304, on the ground that additional information was included in the same envelope as the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304 … . The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Hibbert, 2022 NY Slip Op 03102. Second Dept 5-11-22

Practice Point: RPAL 1304 is violated if the bank in a foreclosure action mailed the notice of foreclosure to the borrower(s) in an envelope which included other materials along with the notice.

 

You might also like
FAMILY COURT ACT SECTION 1028 REQUIRES THAT THE COURT EXPEDITE A HEARING ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO HAVE HER CHILDREN RETURNED TO HER; HERE THE HEARING WAS STARTED WITHIN THREE DAYS OF THE APPLICATION AS REQUIRED BUT WAS THEREAFTER ADJOURNED SEVERAL TIMES OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS, A VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT ESTABLISH IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD; MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT INCLUDED THE RIGHT TO INSPECT THE PROPERTY AND AN AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY TENANT FOR CLAIMS ARISING FROM TENANT’S NEGLIGENCE.
INSURER’S ATTORNEY MUST BE DEPOSED TO DETERMINE HIS ROLE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF A FIRE ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY AND THE DENIAL OF COVERAGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE DEPOSITION WILL DETERMINE WHETHER THE ATTORNEY’S FILES ARE DISCOVERABLE BY THE PLAINTIFFS (FIRST DEPT).
Although the Elevator Maintenance Company May Have Been Negligent, Under “Espinal,” the Company Did Not Owe a Duty of Care to the Plaintiff—There Was No Evidence the Maintenance Company “Launched an Instrument of Harm,” the Only Available Theory of Liability (Re: Plaintiff) Which Could Have Arisen from the Maintenance Contract
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS RAISED ISSUES OF FACT REQUIRING DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION.
Testimony that Bus Company Held to Higher Standard Required Reversal
THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE; THE PROVISION RELIED ON BY THE EMPLOYER TO AVOID PAYING DEFENDANT’S EARNED SALARY UPON TERMINATION APPLIED ONLY TO THOSE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED (ALLOWING PAYMENT TO BE DEFERRED WHEN AVAILABLE FUNDS ARE INSUFFICIENT); A DIFFERENT PROVISION REQUIRING PAYMENT IN CASH APPLIED TO TERMINATED EMPLOYEES (FIRST DEPT).
Medical Malpractice—Expert Opinion Can Be Based Entirely on Experience.

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

DEFENDANTS PRESENTED NO PROOF OF WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST... PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE GRAVES AMENDMENT, WHICH RELIEVES THE OWNER...