Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing mailing coverage, with 53 published articles analyzing mailing issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Strict Mailing Requirements Continue to Challenge Mortgage Lenders
New York’s Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) Section 1304 requires mortgage lenders to provide borrowers with specific pre-foreclosure notices, but proving proper mailing has become increasingly complex. The statute mandates that 90-day notices be sent by both certified mail and first-class mail, creating a dual requirement that many lenders struggle to satisfy in court.
The Second Department’s recent decision in M&T Bank v. Biordi demonstrates how courts are maintaining strict standards for proving compliance with these mailing requirements. This case highlights the ongoing evolution of mailing-related litigation, which has expanded from lower court disputes to significant appellate-level decisions. As with other areas of procedural law, the devil is in the details when it comes to certified mail and regular mail requirements.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
M&T Bank v Biordi, 2019 NY Slip Op 07775 (2d Dept. 2019)
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
The irony – and I have commented on this before – is that the great Appellate Term mailing debates have transitioned to Appellate Division mailing debates as RPAPL 1304 has spawned an incredible amount of litigation in the mortgage context.
“Attached to the affidavit were copies of 90-day notices, bearing indicia of mailing by certified mail, but not first-class mail, and bearing no postmark or date of mailing. The plaintiff additionally submitted an affidavit of mailing of an Assistant Treasurer/Manager of Hudson City, who attested to the mailing of 90-day notices by first-class and certified mail, but did not attest to personal knowledge of the mailing and did not set forth any details regarding Hudson City’s mailing practices or procedures. Since the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the actual mailing, or evidence of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure, the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 “
Key Takeaway
Courts require mortgage lenders to provide comprehensive evidence of proper mailing procedures, including both certified and first-class mail compliance. Generic affidavits without personal knowledge or detailed mailing procedures are insufficient to establish RPAPL 1304 compliance, potentially derailing foreclosure proceedings.
Related Articles
- Understanding No-Fault Insurance Mailing Requirements from the First Department’s “Venom” Decision
- When Courts Reject Technical Mailing Challenges: The Usual Arguments Have Fallen on Deaf Ears
- Claims Documents as Business Records and Unsuccessful Mailing Challenges
- Understanding No-Fault Insurance Verification Requests and Mailing Requirements
- RPAPL 1304 Notice Defense in NY Foreclosure Cases
- Long Island Foreclosure Defense Lawyer
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Proof of Mailing in New York No-Fault Practice
Proof of mailing is a foundational issue in no-fault litigation. Insurers must prove timely mailing of denial forms, verification requests, and EUO scheduling letters, while providers and claimants must prove timely submission of claim forms and bills. Establishing a standard office mailing procedure through business records — and the presumption of receipt that follows — is heavily litigated. These articles examine the evidentiary standards for proving and challenging mailing in New York no-fault cases.
53 published articles in Mailing
Keep Reading
More Mailing Analysis
Putting the wrong floor is not fatal
Court rules that incorrect floor designation in IME notice mailing address is not fatal when building address is otherwise correct and proper mailing procedures followed.
Mar 22, 2021
Certified Mail and Regular Mail
New York court clarifies that EUO scheduling letters sent by regular mail are sufficient - certified mail is not required for valid examination under oath notices.
Jul 24, 2019
Be careful what you ask for: Discovery by summary judgment motion
Learn how summary judgment motions in no-fault insurance cases can backfire on carriers when discovery rules work against them in medical necessity disputes.
Sep 15, 2010
Proving Mailing in New York: Personal Knowledge Required — Wells Fargo v Mandrin
Wells Fargo v Mandrin (2d Dept 2018): conclusory executive statements cannot prove mailing — New York courts require sworn testimony from someone with personal knowledge.
Apr 26, 2018
Another Mailing
Court rejects mailing affidavit from employee who started after the denial was sent, highlighting importance of personal knowledge in proving proper mailing procedures.
Apr 17, 2015
The Usual Mailing Arguments Have Fallen on Deaf Ears (Again): When Courts Reject Technical Challenges
Courts reject excessive technical challenges in no-fault insurance cases. Expert analysis of Quality Psychological case from Long Island. Call 516-750-0595.
Jan 18, 2013Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a mailing matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
