23, 2020, No. 19-CV-8821 (KMK)]; Solis v Commonwealth Fin. Sys., Inc., 2020 WL 2523047, *3, 2020 US Dist LEXIS 86792, *8 [ED NY, May 15, 2020, 18-cv-6130 (SJF) (AKT)].)
[1] A consumer receiving an RPAPL 1304 90-day notice containing the language which the statute requires could reasonably interpret such a notice as having been sent in an attempt to collect the mortgage debt. As noted above, section 1304 required Nationstar to tell Ms. Luria:
• that she may be at risk of foreclosure;
• that her mortgage was $xxx in default;
• that she was at risk of losing her home;
• that she could cure the default by paying a specified amount by a specified date;
• that Nationstar encouraged her to take immediate steps to try to achieve a resolution;
• that the longer she waited, the fewer options she might have; and
• that if she did not take action to resolve the matter within 90 days, legal action may be commenced against her.
A defaulting borrower like Ms. Luria would be hard put to construe such a notice, objectively considered, as anything{**76 Misc 3d at 735} other than a lender's attempt to induce payment of a portion of the outstanding mortgage debt on pain of the foreclosure of her mortgage and the loss of her home. Hence, section 1304 90-day notices qualify as measures undertaken "in connection with the collection of [a] debt" within the meaning of 15 USC § 1692e.
The FDCPA "Mini-Miranda" Warning