‹¯¨
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Luria (2022 NY Slip Op 22218)
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Luria
2022 NY Slip Op 22218 [76 Misc 3d 724]
July 18, 2022
Grossman, J.
Supreme Court, Putnam County
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, October 26, 2022
[*1]
The Bank of New York Mellon, Plaintiff,
v
Ann Luria et al., Defendants.
Supreme Court, Putnam County, July 18, 2022
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Clair Gjertsen & Weathers PLLC (Mary Aufrecht of counsel) for Ann Luria, defendant.
Friedman Vartolo LLP (Zachary Gold of counsel) for plaintiff.
{**76 Misc 3d at 725} OPINION OF THE COURT
Victor G. Grossman, J.
It is ordered that the motion is disposed of as follows:
Factual and Procedural Background
This is a mortgage foreclosure action. The plaintiff bank has been awarded summary judgment on its foreclosure claim, but a judgment of foreclosure and sale remains to be entered. Defendant borrower Ann Luria now moves for renewal on the basis of the Second Department's recent decision in Bank of Am., N.A. v Kessler (202 AD3d 10 [2d Dept 2021]). She contends that plaintiff's 90-day notice did not comply with the requirements of RPAPL 1304, as interpreted by Kessler, because in addition to the language prescribed in section 1304 (1) it contained the following language:
"Nationstar is a debt collector. This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. However, if you are currently{**76 Misc 3d at 726} in bankruptcy or have received a discharge in bankruptcy, this communication is not an attempt to collect a debt from you personally to the extent that it is included in your bankruptcy or has been discharged, but is provided for informational purposes only."
[*2]