You are here: / / THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE ARE STRICTLY CONSTRUED;...
,

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE ARE STRICTLY CONSTRUED; HERE THE OMISSION OF A WEBSITE ADDRESS FROM THE NOTICE RESULTED IN DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the omission of a website address from the RPAPL 1304 foreclosure notice required dismissal of the foreclosure action:

The RPAPL 1304 notices purportedly sent to the defendant failed to include the website address for the NYS Office of the Attorney General’s Homeowner Protection Program, http://www.aghomehelp.com/—a piece of information specifically required by the version of RPAPL 1304 in effect at the time the notices were sent—and thus, the notices were facially defective … . * * * Accordingly, the court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s cross-motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Bethpage Fed. Credit Union v Pepe, 2026 NY Slip Op 06085, Second Dept 10-21-26

Practice Point: Any omission from the statutorily required contents of an RPAPL 1304 notice will result in dismissal of the foreclosure action. Here a website address was missing and the complaint was dismissed.​

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE ISSUES ON APPEAL COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN AN APPEAL WHICH WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, THE COURT EXERCISED ITS JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE INSTANT APPEAL; THE MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW WAS BROUGHT BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED HER CASE AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FIRST DEGREE NOT MET; CONVICTION REDUCED TO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT SECOND DEGREE (SECOND DEPT).
Mortgagee in Possession Has a Duty to Care for the Property/Criteria for Determining a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action, Where Documentary Evidence Is Submitted, Explained
NO REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR FAILURE TO PRESENT DOCUMENTS WITH ORIGINAL MOTION, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT AGENCY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY TO PLAINTIFF; HOWEVER IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AGENCY DID NOT HAVE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE POLICY; THEREFORE THE TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL AS HE WALKED THROUGH A “ROOM,” NOT A “PASSAGEWAY;” THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION PROHIBITING OBSTRUCTIONS IN A “PASSAGEWAY” SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE ALLEGED HE WAS INJURED WHEN HE STEPPED ON A LOOSE MANHOLE COVER OWNED BY DEFENDANT-TOWN; THE TOWN DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION BUT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION; THE TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SHOW UP FOR THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED; IN MOVING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE AND DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS DELAY IN SEEKING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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 “ALICE” DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE, SHE WAS NAMED AS A “BORROWER”... HERE PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY ALLEGED A RELETTING FEE (TWO MONTHS RENT) IN A LEASE...