U.S. Bank N.A. v. Cambardella, 214 A.D.3d 925

U.S. Bank N.A. brought a mortgage foreclosure action against Mario Cambardella in January 2018.
Cambardella answered and asserted, among other defenses, that the plaintiff failed to comply with RPAPL § 1304 (notice requirements).
Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the complaint and for an order of reference; Cambardella cross-moved to dismiss for failure to comply with RPAPL § 1304(2)’s "separate envelope" requirement.
The RPAPL § 1304 notice sent to Cambardella included additional language: debt-collector identification, originating creditor, outstanding balance, contact info, bankruptcy-related language, and an income-protection disclosure for New York residents.
Supreme Court (Suffolk County) granted plaintiff’s summary judgment branches, denied Cambardella’s cross-motion, and appointed a referee to compute the amount due; Cambardella appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the RPAPL § 1304 notice complied with the separate-envelope requirement when it contained additional information	The additional bankruptcy, creditor, balance, contact, and income-disclosure information is directly related to foreclosure and borrowers’ protections and does not constitute an "other notice."	The additional material converted the mailing into an impermissible "other notice," violating the separate-envelope mandate and invalidating the foreclosure.	Court held plaintiff established prima facie compliance; the added information was related to statutory purpose and not misleading, so it did not violate the separate-envelope rule.
Whether the defendant's remaining contention may be considered on appeal	N/A	The defendant raised an additional contention in opposition to summary judgment.	The court declined to consider that contention because it was raised for the first time on appeal.

Citibank, N.A. v. Conti-Scheurer, 172 A.D.3d 17 (App. Div. 2d Dep't) (strict compliance with RPAPL § 1304 notice is a condition precedent to foreclosure)
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Banks, 155 A.D.3d 936 (App. Div. 2d Dep't) (same principle regarding RPAPL § 1304 compliance)