Bank of NY Mellon v. Elghossain, 16 A.3d 1132

Defendants executed a note for $260,000 and a mortgage on Aug 2, 2004; loan assigned through three entities, ending with Bank of New York Trustee as foreclosing plaintiff.
Default occurred after defendants missed the Nov 1, 2009 installment; loan status became default on Dec 1, 2009.
Two Notices of Intent to Foreclose (NOIs) were sent by certified mail on Dec 18, 2009 to both defendants.
Issues center on whether the NOI satisfied Fair Foreclosure Act requirements, particularly the identification of the lender and the lender’s representative.
Plaintiff argues NOI compliance is sufficient despite not naming the lender; defendants contend strict compliance required and servicer identity is insufficient.
Court dismisses foreclosure complaint without prejudice for failure to strictly comply with the NOI requirements, specifically lack of lender identification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NOI must name the lender and its representative.	NOI identifies the servicer; no strict lender naming required.	FFA requires explicit lender identification and contact information.	NOI must name the lender and provide contact; failure warrants dismissal.
Effect of servicer-only NOI on compliance and foreclosure viability.	Servicer identity enough since it is the party handling the loan.	Statutory text requires lender identification; servicer alone is insufficient.	Strict compliance required; servicer-only NOI is defective and warrants dismissal.

EMC Mortgage Corp. v. Chaudhri, 400 N.J. Super. 126 (App.Div.2008) (strict compliance required; substantial compliance insufficient)
GE Capital Mortgage Servs., Inc. v. Weisman, 339 N.J. Super. 590 (Ch.Div.2000) (Weisman allowed noncertified mail in some contexts; Chaudhri later rejected this approach)
Hammond v. Paterson, 145 N.J. Super. 452 (App.Div.1976) (strict mail delivery notice emphasized; mandatory notice requirements)