You are here: / / SENDING THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO BOTH BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE...
,

SENDING THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO BOTH BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE VIOLATED RPAPL 1304 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action failed to comply with RPAPL 1304 by sending the notice of foreclosure to both borrowers in the same envelope:

As the Second Department noted, the language of RPAPL 1304 (1) is careful to distinguish a borrower, singular, from borrowers, plural (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Yapkowitz, 199 AD3d at 134). However, RPAPL 1304 (2), which requires that notices be sent in separate envelopes, only discusses “borrower,” singular (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Yapkowitz, 199 AD3d at 134; RPAPL 1304 [2]). In that case, the Court also drew attention to the fact that, although it is possible that whichever borrower reads the notice would alert the other borrower of the mailing, this is not always what occurs (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Yapkowitz, 199 AD3d at 135). Accordingly, we now also adopt the holding of the Second Department in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Thus, given that the requisite 90-day notices were jointly addressed to both borrowers, plaintiff did not comply with RPAPL 1304 … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Zatari, 2023 NY Slip Op 05436, Third Dept 10-26-23

Practice Point: Sending the notice of foreclosure to two borrowers in the same envelope is a violation RPAPL 1304.

 

You might also like
CLAIMANT DID NOT REMOVE HIMSELF FROM EXPOSURE TO HARMFUL NOISE FOR THREE MONTHS PRIOR TO APPLYING FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION FOR HEARING LOSS, CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED.
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT PROCEEDING IN THIS HIGH PROFILE CASE SHOULD BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC TO PROTECT THE IDENTITIES OF THE VICTIMS (THIRD DEPT).
THE APPELLATE DIVISION DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION BECAUSE PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING HAD BEEN DENIED, THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION, SEEKING REVIEW OF THE DISQUALIFICATION OF A BID ON A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, WAS THEREFORE DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
TRESPASS AND NUISANCE ACTIONS BASED UPON WATER RUNOFF FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER-INMATE WAS DENIED DUE PROCEES WHEN HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO VIEW A VIDEO OF THE INCIDENT WHICH RESULTED IN THE MISBEHAVIOR CHARGE; NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
THE REGULATION REQUIRING NEW YORK HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES TO COVER MEDICALLY NECESSARY ABORTION SERVICES, WHICH INCLUDES AN EXEMPTION FOR ‘RELIGIOUS EMPLOYERS,’ IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND WAS PROPERLY PROMULGATED (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONERS, RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES, SOUGHT A WRIT OF MANDAMUS PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLE 78 COMPELLING THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO HEAR RATE APPEALS WHICH CHALLENGE MEDICAID RATE PAYMENTS; BECAUSE THE REQUESTED RELIEF REQUIRED THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MANDAMUS RELIEF WAS NOT AVAILABLE (THIRD DEPT).
COURTS HAVE ONLY A LIMITED POWER TO REVIEW AN ARBITRATOR’S RULING; HERE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE FOUND THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HER AUTHORITY BY ORDERING BACK PAY FOR A REINSTATED COUNTY EMPLOYEE (THIRD 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

​EMOTIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO PECUNIARY DAMAGES, WILL... THE QUESTIONNAIRES FILLED OUT BY APPLICANTS FOR CITY JUDICIAL POSITIONS WERE...