You are here: / / THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH...
, ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, INCLUDING THE “ONE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court. determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate strict compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304, including compliance with the “one envelope” rule:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish … that it strictly complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 … . Moreover, in support of their cross motion, the defendants … demonstrated, prima facie, that the plaintiff included additional material in the same envelope as the RPAPL 1304 notice, in violation of the separate mailing requirement of RPAPL 1304(2) … . US Bank N.A. v Kaplan, 2022 NY Slip Op 01201, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
PLAINTIFF-CONTRACTOR’S FAILURE TO PROVE THE VALUE OF THE WORK PRECLUDED RECOVERY UNDER THE LIEN LAW AND UNDER A QUANTUM MERUIT THEORY; CRITERIA FOR AMENDMENT OF A COMPLAINT TO CONFORM TO TRIAL PROOF DESCRIBED.
THE INDICTMENT CHARGED DEFENDANT WITH POSSESSION OF A WEAPON OUTSIDE HIS HOME OR BUSINESS; THE JUDGE INSTRUCTED THE JURY THEY NEED ONLY FIND DEFENDANT POSSESSED A LOADED FIREARM; THE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTION WAS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE SCAFFOLD FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL HAD NO SAFETY RAILINGS AND THE SCAFFOLD WOBBLED AND COLLAPSED BECAUSE OF THE KICKBACK FROM A HAMMER DRILL PLAINTIFF WAS USING; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS STAIRCASE SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE CAUSES OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRCASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION AMOUNTED TO MISCONDUCT, 911 CALL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION OR AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, CROSS-EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANT UNDULY RESTRICTED.
PLAINTIFF’S INJURY DID NOT INVOLVE THE TYPE OF ELEVATION HAZARD CONTEMPLATED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND DEFENDANTS DID NOT EXERCISE A LEVEL OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL SUFFICIENT TO TRIGGER LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (SECOND DEPT).
FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 90-DAY DEMAND AND OVERALL DELAY AND NEGLECT (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

THE BANK FAILED TO SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED ON IN ITS AFFIDAVIT IN... THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MEET THE...