You are here: / Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL)
, ,

AT THE FORECLOSURE TRIAL, THE BANK DEMONSTRATED THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS SENT TO DEFENDANT BY CERTIFIED MAIL BUT FAILED TO PROVE THE NOTICE WAS ALSO SENT BY REGULAR MAIL; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof of mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice in this foreclosure action was insufficient:

“A plaintiff can establish strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 by submitting domestic return receipts, proof of a standard office procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, or an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge that the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice actually happened” … . Here, although the certified mailing receipt bearing the defendant’s signature upon delivery was sufficient to establish the mailing of one notice by certified mail … , the label submitted as proof of the regular first-class mailing, with no postage, no address of intended recipient, “no indicia of actual mailing such as postal codes and . . . [no] mailing receipts or tracking information” … , was insufficient to establish that the notice was actually mailed by regular first-class mail … . Since the plaintiff also failed to submit “proof of a standard office procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed,” or testimony “from someone with personal knowledge that the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice actually happened” … , the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 at the nonjury trial … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Robustello, 2026 NY Slip Op 00340, Second Dept 1-28-26

Practice Point: The RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure requirements must be strictly complied with. Here, at trial, the bank proved the RPAPL 1304 notice was sent by certified mail and received by the defendant, but the bank failed to prove the RPAPL 1304 notice was also sent by regular mail. The complaint was dismissed.

 

, , ,

​ IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE REQUEST FOR A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 WAS NOT APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE BORROWER WAS DECEASED; BECAUSE, UNDER THE FACTS, A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WAS NOT A PREREQUISITE FOR FILING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, THE REQUEST FOR A CONFERENCE DID NOT HOLD THE FORECLOSURE ACTION IN ABEYANCE AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action must be dismissed as abandoned. Plaintiff argued that its request for a settlement conference pursuant to CPLR 3408 constituted “the taking of proceedings” within one year of the default and therefore dismissal of the action as abandoned was precluded. The First Department agreed that, under the circumstances contemplated by CPLR 3408, requesting a settlement conference would demonstrate the action was not abandoned. Here, however, CPLR 3408 did not apply because the borrower was deceased and the action was brought by an executor. Because CPLR 3408 did not apply, the request for a settlement conference did not qualify as “the taking of proceedings:”

… [T]his foreclosure action must be dismissed as abandoned, because plaintiff’s argument is premised on its mistaken assumption that it was required to file an RJI seeking a mandatory conference before it could move for a default judgment. …

… CPLR 3408(a)(1) requires a mandatory settlement conference in “a residential foreclosure action involving a home loan” where “the defendant is a resident of the property subject to foreclosure.” A mandatory conference is not required where the defendant does not reside at the property when the foreclosure action is commenced … . Watkins, the borrower, was not a resident of the property when the foreclosure action was commenced because he died two years earlier.

Additionally, a mandatory conference is required for “a home loan” which is defined, among other things, to include a requirement that “[t]he borrower is a natural person” (RPAPL 1304[6][a][1][i]). Here, the borrower was deceased when plaintiff commenced this action against Thomas in her capacity of executrix of Watkins’s estate. Thomas is neither a borrower, nor a natural person in this context … . Municipal Credit Union v Thomas, 2025 NY Slip Op 06260, First Dept 11-13-25

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, where the criteria for a settlement conference pursuant to CPLR 3408 are met, a request for a conference within one year of a default will constitute “the taking of proceedings” and preclude dismissal of the action as abandoned. However where, as here, CPLR 3408 is inapplicable because the borrower is deceased, the request for a settlement conference did not constitute “the taking of proceedings” and did not preclude a finding of abandonment.

 

, ,

AT TRIAL IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTFF FAILED TO PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE AND FAILED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the foreclosure complaint, determined the plaintiff did not demonstrate standing to foreclose and did not demonstrate compliance with the notice-of-foreclosure mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [S]ince the witness on the issue of standing proffered by the plaintiff at the trial testified, among other things, that the purported allonges that were with the original note were not stapled to the note, and further testified that he did not know when the allonges were executed or attached to the note, the plaintiff failed to establish its standing as the holder of the original note at the time of the commencement of the action. * * *

… [P]laintiff’s witness on the issue of notice did not have knowledge of the mailing practices of the entity which, according to the plaintiff, sent the requisite 30-day and 90-day notices … . Moreover, the business records that were submitted in evidence failed to show that the requisite certified and first-class mailings of the RPAPL 1304 notices or the default notices were actually made to the defendants or that the default notices were actually delivered to their notice address. Thus, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 and failed to show that the default notices were sent in accordance with the terms of the mortgage agreement … . Onewest Bank FSB v Thomas, 2025 NY Slip Op 05692, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: If a foreclosure action goes to trial and standing is contested, the bank must prove it has standing to foreclose. In addition, the bank must prove compliance with the notice-of-foreclosure mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304. Here the failure of proof on those issues resulted in dismissal of the complaint.​

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 RESULTED IN DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT AFTER TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not strictly comply with the provisions of RPAPL 1304, requiring dismissal of the complaint after trial:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. “‘Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action'” … . When this action was commenced in 2015, RPAPL 1304(1) required that the notice sent to borrowers contain the following language: “As of . . . , your home loan is . . . days in default. Under New York State Law, we are required to send you this notice to inform you that you are at risk of losing your home. You can cure this default by making the payment of . . . dollars by . . .” … .

Here, at the nonjury trial, the plaintiff submitted the notice sent to the defendant, which omitted the cure date as required by the statute. Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish its compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Christiana Trust v Larmond, 2025 NY Slip Op 05664, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: Here the notice of foreclosure presented as evidence at trial did not comply with RPAPL 1304, requiring dismissal of the complaint.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD PURCHASED 75% OF REAL PROPERTY FROM THE HEIRS OF THE ORIGINAL OWNER, SOUGHT PARTITION AND SALE; DEFENDANT, WHOSE MOTHER HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, OWNED THE REMAINING 25%; UNDER THE UNIFORM PARTITION OF HEIRS PROPERTY ACT (UPHPA), PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT IN GOOD FAITH, BUT DID NOT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wan, determined that plaintiff, who had purchased 75% of a piece of real property from the heirs of the original owner, did not negotiate in good faith in seeking a judgment directing the partition and sale of the property. The Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act (UPHPA) (RPAPL 993) applies to this situation, where defendant, an heir of the original owner, holds the remaining 25% of the property. The UPHPA required that plaintiff negotiate a sale price for its share of the property and/or a purchase price for defendant’s share of the property in good faith. Both Supreme Court and the Second Department determined plaintiff did not negotiate in good faith and therefore was not entitled to the partition and sale:

Pursuant to RPAPL 993, property that qualifies as “heirs property” within the meaning of RPAPL 993(2)(e) is subject to the mandates of the UPHPA, which supersedes the general partition statutes, including RPAPL 901 … .

Following the commencement of a partition action involving “heirs property,” RPAPL 993(5)(a) mandates that the matter shall proceed to a settlement conference, “for the purpose of holding settlement discussions, pertaining to the relative rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the subject property” … . …

RPAPL 993(5)(e) further requires that “[b]oth the plaintiff[ ] and defendant[ ] shall negotiate in good faith [during the UPHPA mandated settlement conferences] to reach a mutually agreeable resolution.” * * *

​… [A]s the defendant contends, the equitable factors set forth in RPAPL 993(9)(a) strongly favored her position that she was primarily interested in reaching an agreement that would allow her to maintain her ownership interest in the property. … [T]he defendant’s mother had purchased the property in 1970, approximately 50 years before the plaintiff acquired its interest in the property and commenced this action. … [T]he defendant had grown up in the property, her children had grown up there, and her son still lived there … . Additionally, the plaintiff, who is not a relative of either person from whom it purchased its 75% interest in the property …, allegedly purchased that interest for $136,000. Despite purchasing its interest in the property for approximately one quarter of the appraised value of that interest of $521,250, the plaintiff made a final offer to sell its interest in the property for $500,000, which would afford the plaintiff a significant profit … . Laurelton Estates, LLC v Prince, 2025 NY Slip Op 05226, Second Dept 10-1-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into what the “good-faith-settlement-negotiation” requirements in the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act (UPHPA) are. The requirements were not met here. ​

 

,

STATEMENTS IN BOLD LETTERS ON THE BOTTOM OF EACH PAGE OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE, AS WELL AS A CONSUMER NOTICE PURSUANT TO 15 USC SECTION 1692G, DID NOT VIOLATE THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined statements included with the RPAPL 1304 90-day notice-of-foreclosure did not violate the “separate envelope” rule:

“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'” … . Here, in support of her cross-motion, the defendant presented evidence that the 90-day notices included an additional statement, in bold letters, at the bottom of each page, indicating that the notice was “AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT” and that “ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED . . . WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE,” as well as a consumer notice pursuant to 15 USC § 1692g. However, the subject language does not constitute an “other mailing or notice” in violation of the separate envelope mandate of RPAPL 1304(2). The additional material consisted of “accurate statements that further the underlying statutory purpose of providing information to borrowers that is or may become relevant to avoiding foreclosure” … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Berry, 2025 NY Slip Op 04769, Second Dept 8-27-25

Practice Point: The separate envelope rule which requires that the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure be sent “in a separate envelope from any other mailing or notice” was not violated here by statements in bold letters on the bottom of each page of the RPAPL 1304 notice or by the inclusion of a consumer notice pursuant to 15 USC section 1692g.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE COMPLIED WITH THE STATUTE WHEN IT WAS SENT, IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE VERSION OF THE STATUTE IN EFFECT WHEN THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure was sufficient at the time it was served, it did not meet the RPAPL 1304 notice requirements at the time the action was brought:

RPAPL 1304(1) provides that “at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower, . . . including mortgage foreclosure, such lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer shall give notice to the borrower.” “‘Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action'” … . “Where an RPAPL 1304 notice fails to reflect information mandated by the statute, . . . the statute will not have been strictly complied with and the notice will not be valid” … .

Here, although the language in a 90-day notice sent … in November 2016 complied with the language set forth in RPAPL 1304 as it existed at the time the notice was mailed … , the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that the notice complied with the language set forth in RPAPL 1304 as it existed at the time this action was commenced in December 2018 … . Since there was more than a two-year period between the time that the notice was sent and the time that the action was commenced, “[n]othing prevented the plaintiff from sending the defendant a new RPAPL 1304 notice, using the updated language, 90 days prior to commencing this action” … . Accordingly, as the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, strict compliance with RPAPL 1304, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Scarso, 2025 NY Slip Op 04745, Second Dept 8-20-25

Practice Point: RPAPL 1304 must be strictly complied with. Here the RPAP 1304 notice of foreclosure complied with the statute when it was sent, but not when the action was commenced. The bank’s summary judgment motion should have been denied.

 

, , ,

PLAINITFF’S AGENTS WHO MAILED THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WERE NOT IDENTIFIED IN PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING; ALSO, THE AFFIDAVIT PROVIDED NO FOUNDATION FOR SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS FROM A THIRD-PARTY VENDOR; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff in this foreclosure action to demonstrate the proper mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure was deficient, requiring denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment:

… [P]laintiff submitted an affidavit of Connie Melendez, an employee of the plaintiff. … Melendez’s affidavit failed to establish that notice was sent … in the manner required by RPAPL 1304. While Melendez averred that she had personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s standard office mailing procedures and described those purported procedures, she acknowledged that the mailings were carried out “by and through [the plaintiff’s] agents.” However, Melendez did not identify who those agents were or attest that she was familiar with their standard office mailing procedures. Thus, Melendez’s affidavit did not establish proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Further, Melendez’s affidavit failed to address the nature of the plaintiff’s relationship with a certain third-party vendor and whether the third-party vendor’s records were incorporated into the plaintiff’s own records or routinely relied upon in the plaintiff’s business … . Thus, Melendez’s affidavit failed to lay a foundation for the admission of a transaction report generated by the third-party vendor … . Finally, “the tracking numbers on the copies of the . . . notices submitted by the plaintiff, standing alone, did not suffice to establish, prima facie, proper mailing under RPAPL 1304” … . Likewise, a “Proof of Filing Statement” from the New York State Banking Department pursuant to RPAPL 1306 failed to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s compliance with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 … . For the same reasons, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that a notice of default in accordance with sections 15 and 22 of the mortgage agreement was properly transmitted prior to the commencement of this action … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Ricks, 2025 NY Slip Op 04728, Second Dept 8-20-25

Practice Point: Agents who mailed the RPAPL 1304 notice were not identified in plaintiff’s affidavit and plaintiff’s relationship with a third party vendor was not demonstrated. Therefore the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not prove proper mailing of the notice of foreclosure and did not demonstrate compliance with related provisions in the mortgage agreement.

 

,

STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE PROVISIONS IN RPAPL 1304 IS REQUIRED; HERE THE BANK FAILED TO SHOW THAT IT SENT RPAPL 1304 NOTICES ADDRESSED INDIVIDUALLY TO DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s failure to comply with the notice of foreclosure requirements of RPAPL 1304 precluded summary judgment:

RPAPL 1304(1) provides that “at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower, . . . including mortgage foreclosure, such lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer shall give notice to the borrower.” “Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action” … . RPAPL 1304(2) states 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” … .

… [A] “‘defense based on noncompliance with RPAPL 1304 may be raised at any time'” prior to the entry of a judgment of foreclosure and sale … . … [T]he plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with the service requirements of RPAPL 1304. … [T]he plaintiff failed to show that it sent RPAPL 1304 notices addressed individually to each of those defendants as required by the statute … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Stein, 2025 NY Slip Op 04638, Second Dept 8-13-25

Practice Point: Strict compliance with the notice of foreclosure provisions of RPAPL 1304 is required. The notices must be sent to defendants individually.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE FORECLOSURE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DISMISSED AFTER TRIAL BECAUSE THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE STANDING AND COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELLED AND DISCHARGED THE MORTGAGE, RELIEF DEFENDANT HAD NOT REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the judge did not have the power to sua sponte cancel and discharge the mortgage. After trial, the foreclosure cause of action was dismissed because the bank failed to demonstrate standing to foreclose and failed to demonstrate compliance with RPAPL 1304:

The Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, directing the cancellation and discharge of record the mortgage. The court may grant relief warranted pursuant to a general prayer for relief “if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party” … . Here, in his answer, the defendant sought, among other things, dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against him but did not seek cancellation and discharge of record the mortgage. Thus, the court’s sua sponte directive to cancel and discharge of record the mortgage was dramatically unlike the relief requested … . Moreover, the proof adduced at trial did not support the relief granted … , and the plaintiff was prejudiced, since it was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on the issue of the propriety of the relief granted, which deprived it of its security interest in the premises … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Amigon, 2025 NY Slip Op 04536, Second Dept 8-6-25

Practice Point: Here, although the foreclosure cause of action was dismissed on defendant’s motion after trial, the judge did not have the authority to cancel and discharge the mortgage, relief that was not requested by the defendant.

 

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