DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY v. GHOSH (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Nandita Ghosh appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (David P. Sullivan, J.), dated September 18, 2023.  The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, the defendant Nandita Ghosh (hereinafter the defendant) to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property located in New Hyde Park. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her on the ground that the plaintiff failed to comply with RPAPL 1304.  The plaintiff opposed the motion.  In an order dated September 18, 2023, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the defendant's motion.  The defendant appeals.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her on the ground that the plaintiff failed to comply with RPAPL 1304.  The inclusion of additional information with the notices required by RPAPL 1304 did not violate the requirement that the RPAPL 1304 notices be sent “in a separate envelope from any other mailing or notice” (id. § 1304[2] ), as the additional information consisted of “accurate statements that further the underlying statutory purpose of providing information to borrowers that is or may become relevant to avoiding foreclosure” (Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kessler, 39 N.Y.3d 317, 326, 186 N.Y.S.3d 85, 206 N.E.3d 1228;  see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Pirozzi, 230 A.D.3d 736, 740, 218 N.Y.S.3d 631;  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Smith, 218 A.D.3d 832, 834, 193 N.Y.S.3d 266).  Further, the defendant's contention that the RPAPL 1304 notices were improperly sent by the plaintiff's counsel is without merit (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Pirozzi, 230 A.D.3d at 739, 218 N.Y.S.3d 631;  Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC v. Siame, 185 A.D.3d 408, 409, 124 N.Y.S.3d 789).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

The parties' remaining contentions are not properly before this Court.

CHAMBERS, J.P., WOOTEN, VENTURA and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.