You are here: / / SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE...
,

SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; BECAUSE THE NOTICE WAS NOT SENT TO EACH BORROWER IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wooten, over a strong dissent, determined RPAPL 1304 requires that the 90-day notice of foreclosure proceedings be sent to each borrower in separate envelopes. Here a single envelope with the RPAPL 1304 notice addressed to both borrowers did not comply with the statute and the foreclosure action was properly dismissed by Supreme Court:

… [W]hile 30-day notices of default were separately mailed to each of the defendants, the 90-day notice, which was sent via certified and first-class mail, was jointly addressed to the defendants. While the record reflects that “F. Yapkowitz” signed for and accepted delivery of the 90-day notice sent via certified mail, receipt of the notice is inconsequential. Even assuming, arguendo, that both of the defendants had signed for and accepted delivery of the 90-day notice, the plaintiff would not have demonstrated strict compliance with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 by mailing a notice jointly addressed to both of the borrowers in the same envelope. Since it is undisputed that the 90-day notice to each of the borrowers was sent in the same envelope, the plaintiff failed to establish its compliance with RPAPL 1304, a condition precedent to the commencement of the action. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Yapkowitz, 2021 NY Slip Op 05139, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

You might also like
Defendant’s Waiver of His Right to Appeal, Which Included His Signing a Printed Form Used by Rockland County, Was Invalid
DEFENDANT ABUTTING LESSEE DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE ITS SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS DID NOT EXACERBATE THE ICE-SNOW CONDITION IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS SWEEPING THE FLOOR WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY BY A PIECE OF A SKIDLOADER USED TO HOIST A MOTOR, WAS NOT ENGAGED IN AN ACTIVITY COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH NONPARTY JP MORGAN DID NOT APPEAR IN THE UNDERLYING FORECLOSURE, IT COULD RECOVER SURPLUS FUNDS BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT ON A CREDIT-LINE LOAN SECURED BY THE PROPERTY; JP MORGAN’S ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE CREDIT-LINE DEBT WAS NEVER UNEQUIVOCALLY ACCELERATED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE LOAN SERVICER’S AFFIDAVIT MAY HAVE LAID A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE DOCUMENTS DEMONSTRATING DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE DOCUMENTS THEMSELVES WERE NOT PRODUCED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT). ​
Allegations Supported the Existence of an “Implied Physician-Patient Relationship” Giving Rise to a Duty Owed to Plaintiff by the On-Call Surgeon—The On-Call Surgeon Was Notified of Plaintiff’s Facial Lacerations But Told Hospital Personnel (by Phone) His Services Were Not Required to Treat the Plaintiff—Plaintiff Alleged Suturing by a Physician’s Assistant Resulted in Excess Pain and Scarring
A RESTITUTION HEARING IS REQUIRED WHEN (1) THE DEFENDANT REQUESTS IT, AND (2) WHEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE AMOUNT IS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE SENTENCING JUDGE IMPROPERLY SPECULATED AND CONSIDERED UNCHARGED CRIMES; SENTENCE VACATED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED... PETITIONER-POLICE-OFFICER’S SLIP AND FALL ON BLACK ICE WAS A COMPENSABLE...