"This subchapter does not annul, alter, or affect, or exempt any person subject to the provisions of this subchapter from complying with the laws of any State with respect to debt collection practices, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with any provision of this subchapter, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency. For purposes of this section, a State law is not inconsistent with this subchapter if the protection such law affords any consumer is greater than the protection provided by this subchapter" (emphasis added).
In the wake of this court's interim decision, one federal district court, faced with an RPAPL 1304 notice containing essentially the same FDCPA-related language as that presented here, observed that "Kessler . . . did not grapple with how the separate envelope rule conflicts with a debt collector's obligations under the FDCPA," expressly found that the Kessler rule conflicts with the requirements of 15 USC § 1692e (11) and declined to follow Kessler. (See CIT Bank, N.A. v Neris, 2022 WL 1799497, *5-6, 2022 US Dist LEXIS 99040, *12-14 [SD NY, June 2, 2022, 18 Civ. 1511 (VM)].) Indeed, the Second Department has never addressed the FDCPA preemption issue presented by the case at bar, perhaps because the issue has never previously arisen.[FN2]
[*4]