PHH Mortgage Corporation v. Massimo Razionale; New York City Environmental Control Board; New York City Parking Violations Bureau; New York City Transit Adjudication Bureau

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT D OCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED PHH Mortgage Corporation, DOC #: ____ _____________ DATE FILED: 1/8/2026___ Plaintiff,

-against- 25 Civ. 3029 (AT) (GS) Massimo Razionale; New York City Environmental Control Board; New York City Parking Violations ORDER Bureau; New York City Transit Adjudication Bureau,

Defendants. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge:

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and supporting papers. See ECF Nos. 35–41. Pursuant to New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”) § 1320, “[i]n an action to foreclose a mortgage on a residential property containing not more than three units, in addition to the usual requirements applicable to a summons in the court, the summons shall contain a notice in boldface” with specific language prescribed in § 1320 . The property involved in this action appears to be a two-unit residential property. See Assignments, ECF No. 1-4 at 3, 5, 9, 13, 15. The summonses in this case do not contain the required language, see ECF Nos. 8–11 (summonses), and although the affidavit of service reports that the notice required by RPAPL § 1320 was sent to Defendant Razionale, see ECF Nos. 19, 19-1, 40-10, such notices do not appear to have been produced to the Court and or included with the copies of the papers filed alongside the affidavits of service.

Accordingly, by January 22, 2026, Plaintiff shall either indicate to the Court whether it has complied with RPAPL § 1320, and, if so, submit or identify evidence of such compliance, or indicate how Plaintiff may otherwise be entitled to default judgment despite insufficient evidence of compliance with § 1320. See, e.g., Nationstare Mortgage LLC v. Atanas, 285 F. Supp. 3d 618, 622–623 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) (evaluating compliance with RPAPL notice requirements in a mortgage foreclosure default judgment action); Brown v. Amarante, No. 23 Civ. 3514, 2024 WL 4716364, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 23 Civ. 3514, 2025 WL 934318 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2025) (on summary judgment motion, finding notice sufficient where notice was printed on separate paper but enclosed with the summons); cf. Windward Bora, LLC v. Sotomayor, No. 21 Civ. 7161, 2023 WL 2575582, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2023) (on default judgment motion, noting “courts routinely find that a plaintiff complies with § 1320 by serving the notice along with the summons and complaint”); ECF No. 69-6 in No. 21 Civ. 7161 (summons in Windward, with § 1320 notice printed on a separate page).

The Court construes Plaintiff’s declaration in support of default judgment as also moving to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice certain other defendants from the case. See Decl., ECF No. 40 at 20-21. That motion is GRANTED; the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to eliminate “John Doe #1” through “John Doe #12” from the case caption. SO ORDERED. Oj- Dated: January 8, 2026 New York, New York ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge