You are here: / / THE BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE OF...
,

THE BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE OF RPAPL 1304 WHICH REQUIRES THAT NOTHING ELSE BE INCLUDED IN THE ENVELOPE WITH THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE; THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action did not comply with the “separate envelope” for the notice of foreclosure required by RPAPL 1304. Therefore the bank’s summary judgment motion should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as it failed to show its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304(2). The “separate envelope” mandate of RPAPL 1304(2) provides that “[t]he notices required by this section shall be sent by the lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer in a separate envelope from any other mailing or notice.” The copies of the 90-day notice submitted by the plaintiff included additional notices not contemplated by RPAPL 1304(2). Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the RPAPL 1304 notice was “‘served in an envelope that was separate from any other mailing or notice'” …. it failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 ,,, , Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Ghosh, 2022 NY Slip Op 05076, Second Dept 8-31-22

Practice Point: If the bank includes other information in the envelope containing the notice of foreclosure, the bank has not complied with RPAPL 1304 and is not entitled to summary judgment.

 

You might also like
THE PERSONAL PROPERTY IN PLAINTIFF’S RENTED STORAGE FACILITY WAS SOLD AT AUCTION BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S PURPORTED FAILURE TO PAY RENT; WHEN THE DEFENDANT STORAGE FACILITY OWNER REALIZED THE RENT HAD BEEN PAID BY PLAINTIFF’S PARTNER, DEFENDANT RESCINDED THE SALE OF PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY, WAIVED LATE FEES, RETURNED THE MONEY TO THE BUYER AND ADVISED THE BUYER TO RETURN THE PROPERTY TO PLAINITFF; ALLEGING PROPERTY WAS MISSING, PLAINTIFF SUED UNDER LIEN LAW 182 FOR “WRONGFUL SALE” OF THE PROPERTY; AFTER AN EXTENSIVE STATUTORY ANALYSIS, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED LIEN LAW 182 DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR “WRONGFUL SALE” (SECOND DEPT).
Insurer Did Not Demonstrate, as a Matter of Law, the Denials of Claims Were Timely and Properly Mailed—Summary Judgment In Favor of Insurer Should Not Have Been Granted
DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN VALIDATED, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE INVALIDATED TWO SIGNATURES BECAUSE THE CANDIDATE WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ALLEGATION, MADE DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION AT A HEARING, THAT THE TWO SIGNATURES WERE INVALID (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A SWIMMING OFFICIAL, SLIPPED ON WATER ON A POOL DECK AT AN INDOOR SWIMMING FACILITY; THE WATER ON THE POOL DECK CAME FROM AN OVERHEAD DEHUMIDIFICATION SYSTEM, NOT FROM SPLASHES FROM THE POOL; THE WATER WAS NOT NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO THE USE OF THE POOL AND THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY A PRIEST WHILE ATTENDING DEFENDANT’S SCHOOL; THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (SECOND DEPT).
Doctrine of Res Judicata Did Not Preclude Lawsuit Against Defendant Building Inspector In His Individual Capacity After Summary Judgment (In Defendant’s Favor) In an Action Against Defendant In His Official Capacity—Transactional Approach to Res Judicata Explained
CONVICTIONS OF INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CLAIM IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT ACTION SUFFICIENTLY STATED THE TIME AND NATURE OF THE SEXUAL ABUSE ALLEGEDLY OCCURRING DURING FOSTER CARE MORE THAN 40 YEARS AGO; THE PLEADING REQUIREMENTS IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS AND THE MECHANICS AND PURPOSE OF THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT CONCISELY EXPLAINED (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 HOME-INSPECTION CONTRACT WAS NOT SIGNED, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED SHE... THE 15-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING THE ESCALATOR IN DEFENDANT’S THEATER...