However, White did not aver that she had personal knowledge of the purported mailings of the 90–day notice, or that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of Roundpoint, which allegedly sent the notice (seeWells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Tricario, 180 A.D.3d 848, 851, 119 N.Y.S.3d 139 ; M & T Bank v. Biordi, 176 A.D.3d 1194, 1196, 111 N.Y.S.3d 384 ). Although the plaintiff submitted proof of mailing and tracking information for certified mailings of the 90–day notice, the plaintiff failed to submit proof of mailing of the notice by first-class mail (seeFederal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. Donovan, 197 A.D.3d 694, 153 N.Y.S.3d 135 ; Santander Bank, N.A. v. Schaefer, 192 A.D.3d 1170, 1171, 141 N.Y.S.3d 721 ). Moreover, White's affidavit failed to specify that the RPAPL 1304 notice was served in an envelope that was separate from any other mailing or notice (see RPAPL 1304[2] ; USBank N.A. v. Haliotis, 185 A.D.3d at 758–759, 128 N.Y.S.3d 17 ).
However, White did not aver that she had personal knowledge of the purported mailings of the 90-day notice, or that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of Roundpoint, which allegedly sent the notice (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Tricario, 180 A.D.3d 848, 851; M & T Bank v Biordi, 176 A.D.3d 1194, 1196). Although the plaintiff submitted proof of mailing and tracking information for certified mailings of the 90-day notice, the plaintiff failed to submit proof of mailing of the notice by first-class mail (see Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Donovan, 197 A.D.3d 694; Santander Bank, N.A. v Schaefer, 192 A.D.3d 1170, 1171). Moreover, White's affidavit failed to specify that the RPAPL 1304 notice was served in an envelope that was separate from any other mailing or notice (see RPAPL 1304[2]; USBank N.A. v Haliotis, 185 A.D.3d at 758-759).