Summary
This New York Appellate Division decision addresses whether a lender's 90-day foreclosure notices violated the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law's "separate envelope" mandate by including additional consumer protection statements. The court reversed the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment for the defendant, holding that the added language regarding debt collection purposes did not constitute prohibited "other mailings." Consequently, the court denied the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the mortgage foreclosure complaint.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the inclusion of additional statements in the 90‑day notice violates RPAPL 1304(2)'s separate‑envelope mandate, warranting reversal of summary judgment.
Holdings
- The additional statements do not constitute a separate mailing or notice prohibited by RPAPL 1304(2); therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment and the order is reversed.
Key quotations
“"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'"” (219 AD3d at 434)
Factual background
HSBC Bank USA sought to foreclose a mortgage on a Brooklyn property. Defendant Novlette Berry argued that the 90‑day notices contained extra statements that violated the separate‑envelope requirement of RPAPL 1304(2). The trial court found the notices permissible and granted summary judgment in the defendant's favor.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a foreclosure action on Brooklyn real property. Defendant moved for summary judgment asserting that the plaintiff's 90‑day notices violated RPAPL 1304(2) by including additional statements. The trial court granted the defendant's cross‑motion. Plaintiff appealed.