You are here: / / THE BANK INCLUDED OTHER NOTICES WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT, A VIOLATION...
,

THE BANK INCLUDED OTHER NOTICES WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT, A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATE ENVELOPE RULE (RPAPL 1304) (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank included other notice with the notice of default, a violation of RPAPL 1304 (the separate envelope rule):

“[P]roper service of RPAPL 1304 notice on the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a residential foreclosure action” … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not comply with RPAPL 1304, since additional notices were sent in the same envelope as the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304, and a single notice was jointly addressed to both of the defendants … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Schneps, 2022 NY Slip Op 06234, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: The separate envelope rule (RPAPL 1304) which requires that nothing else be included with the notice of default is a condition precedent to a foreclosure action.

 

You might also like
IN A FEE DISPUTE, PLAINTIFF-ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY CLIENT OF THE CLIENT’S RIGHT TO ARBITRATE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT.
CIVIL MATTER PROPERLY STAYED UNTIL RELATED CRIMINAL MATTER RESOLVED, DISCRETIONARY CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
THE DIVORCE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT REQUIRED DEFENDANT TO PAY THE CHILDREN’S COLLEGE EXPENSES FOR FOUR YEARS AND DID NOT MENTION AN AGE CUT-OFF; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED DEFENDANT’S OBLIGATION CEASED AT AGE 21 (SECOND DEPT).
REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SEEKING PAYMENT OF A NOTE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFFS WERE PASSENGERS HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY ON A THROUGH ROAD; WHETHER DEFENDANT’S CAR STOPPED AT THE STOP SIGN BEFORE PULLING OUT INTO THE PATH OF PLAINTIFFS’ CAR WAS NOT DISPOSITIVE; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
The Continuing Treatment Was Not Shown to Relate to the Condition Which Caused the Alleged Injury
15-YEAR PERIOD DURING WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT REOFFEND IS A GROUND FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN SETTING THE SORA RISK LEVEL.
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE WORK ON A BOILER WAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE (NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1)) AND WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED, CONTRACTOR’S DEFAULT CONSTITUTED AN ADMISSION TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT, INCLUDING THAT PLAINTIFF SUFFERED A GRAVE INJURY (TAKING THE INJURY OUT FROM UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW) (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

ALTHOUGH THE FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT... THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLONGE, A SEPARATE PAPER, WAS FIRMLY ATTACHED...