HSBC Bank USA v Campora

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

HSBC Bank USA v Campora 2012 NY Slip Op 32509(U) September 21, 2012 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: 6874/2012 Judge: Joseph Farneti Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SHORT FORM ORDER INDEX NO. 6874/2012 SUPREME COURT - STAT[ OF NEW YORK IAS. TERM, PART 37 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. JOSEPH FARNETI Acting Justice Supreme Court HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION TRUSTEE FOR HOMEST AR 2004-2, AS ORIG. RETURN DATE; APRIL 6, 2012 FINAL SUBMISSION DATE: MAY 10, 2012 MTN. SEa. #: 001 MOTION: MG Plaintiff, ORIG. RETURN DATE: APRIL 26, 2012 FINAL SUBMISSION DATE: MAY 10, 2012 MTN. SEa. #: 003 MOTION: MG -againstJERRY CAMPORA. JR. Defendant JERRY CAMPORA, JUNIOR, Counter-Plaintiff, -againstHSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR HOMESTAR 2004-2, Roger K. McGregor and/or his successor, individually, and in his official capacity as CFO, and, Irene M Dorner in her official capacity as President of HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR HOMESTAR 2004-2, Kellie Rohling, in her official capacity as alleged Vice President of, HSBC IlANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE f:OR HOMEST AR 2004-2, EVERHOME MORTGAGE COMPANY and Michael Koster and/or his successor, individually, and in his official capacity as President of [VERHOME MORTGAGE COMPANY, HOMESTAR MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, and Robert Grosser and/or his successor, individually, and in his official capacity as President of HOMESTAR MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC, SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, Mark D. Cohen, Melvyn Tanenbaum, Bethany Hood, James Chua-MN Notary, Counter-Defendants. ORIG. RETURN DATE: APRIL 30, 2012 FINAL SUBMISSION DATE: MAY 10, 2012 MTN. SEa. #: 004 MOTION: MD ORIG. RETURN DATE: MAY 4, 2012 FINAL SUBMISSION DATE: MAY 10, 2012 MTN. SEQ. #: 006 MOTION: MG ORIG. RETURN DATE: MAY 10. 2012 FINAL SUBMISSION DATE: MAY 10, 2012 MTN. SEa. #: 007 MOTION: MG ORIG. RETURN DATE; MAY 16,2012 FINAL SUBMISSION DATE: MAY 17, 2012 MTN. SEa. #: 008 ' MOTION: MD ORIG. RETURN DATE: MAY 12, 2012 FINAL SUBMISSION DATE: MAY 17, 2012 MTN. SEa. #: 009 MOTION: MD ORIG. RETURN DATE: MAY 18, 2012 FINAL SUBMISSION DATE: MAY 24, 2012 MTN. SEQ. #: 010 MOTION: MD [* 2] HSBC BANK USA v CAMPORA, INDEX NO 6874/2012 ET AL. ORIG. RETURN DATE: MAY 10, 2012 FINAL SUBMISSION DATE: MAY 17, 2012 IVITN. SEQ. #: 011 GROSS-MOTION: XMG FARNETI, F'AGE 2 J ORIG. RETURN DATE: MAY 24,2012 FINAL SUBMISSION DATE: MAY 24, 2012 MTN. SEQ. #: 012 MOTION: MD ORIG. RETURN DATE: JUNE 21, 2012 I=INAL SUBMISSION DATE: JUNE 21, 2012 IVITN. SEQ. #: 013 MOTION: MD ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR HOMESTAR 2004-2, AND COUNTER- DEFENDANTS ROGER K. MCGREGOR AND/OR HIS SUCCESSOR, INDIVIDUALLY, AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CFO, IRENE M. DORNER IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF H$BC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOClATION AS TRUSTEE FOR HOMEST AR 2004·2, KELLIE ROHLING, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ALLEGED VICE PRESIDENT OF HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR HOMESTAR 2004·2, EVERHOME l\IIORTGAGE COMPANY, AND MICHAEL KOSTER ANDIOR HIS SUCCESSOR, INDIVIDUAllY, AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF EVERHOME !~ORTGAGE COMPANY: FEIN, SUCH & CRANE, LLP i47 CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD - SUITE 200 CHESTNUT RIDGE, NEW YORK 10977 1345-371-4700 SELF-REPRESENTED DEFENDANTI GOUNTER-PLAINTIFF: JERRY CAMPORA, JUNIOR ONE MARKET PATH SETAUKET, NEW YORK 11733 ATTORNEY FOR COUNTER-DEFENDANTS SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, MARK D. COHEN AND MELVYN TANENBAUM: ERIC T SCHNEIDERMAN I\TTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK BY: RACHEL C. ANELLO, ESQ ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 300 MOTOR PARKWAY - SUITE 205 HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK 11788 EI31-231-2424 ATTORNEY FOR COUNTER-DEFENDANTS BETHANY HOOD AND JAMES CHUA-MN NOTARY: BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP 1251 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10020 212-508-6100 ATTORNEY FOR COUNTER-DEFENDANTS ROBERT GROSSER AND HOMESTAR MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC: DAVID S. KRITZER & ASSOCIATES, PC 180 EAST MAIN STREET - SUITE 204 SMITHTOWN, NEW YORK 117B7 631-979-4777 COUNTER-DEFENDANT: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC RECISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC 1901 EAST VOORHEES STREET - SUITE 3 DANVILLE, IL 61834 [* 3] HSBC BANK USA v. CAMPORA, ET AL INDEX NO 6874/2012 FARNETI, J. PAGE 3 Upon the following papers numbered 1 to 48 read on these motions _ TO EXTENDTIMETO ANSWER,TO DISMISS.ANDFOROTHERRELIEF Notice of Motion and supporting papers 1-3 ; Reply Affidavit 4 ; Notice of Motion and supporting papers 5-7 ; Memorandum of Law in Support _8_; Reply Affirmation _9_: Notice of Motion and supporting papers 10-12 , Affirmation in Opposition 13 ,Notice of Motion and supporting papers 14-16 ; Notice of Motion and supporting papers 17-19 ; Memorandum of Law in Support~; Notice of Motion and supporting papers 21-23 ; Notice of Motion and supporting papers 24-26 ,Notice of Motion and supporting papers --.17-29 ; Affirmation in Reply and in Further Support~, Memorandum of Law in Reply and in Further Support-2L, Ic\ffidavit in Reply and in Further Support and supporting papers 32,33 ,Notice of Cross-Motion and supporting papers 34-36 ; Notice of Motion and supporting papers 37-39 ,Affirmation in Reply and in Opposition to Motion to Strike 40 ; Affidavit in Reply 41 ; Notice of Motion and supporting papers 42-44 ; Other "Ruling Re Counter-Defendants' and Third Party Defendants' Motions to Dismiss by Rachael C. Anell0 45; "Ruling Re Counter-Defendants' and Third Party Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by Richard A Gerbino" - 46; "Ruling Re CounterPlaintiff's Motion to Strike Michael C. Hefter's Motions" - 47; uRuJing Re Robert Grosser's and Homestar Mortgage Services' Cross-Motion to Dismiss by David S. Kritzer" - 48 ; it is, 8 - ORDERED that this motion (seq. #001) by counter-defendants, MARK D. COHEN and MELVYN TANENBAUM, for an Order, pursuant to CPLR 2004, extending the time to answer, move or otherwise respond to the complaint to May 4,2012, is hereby GRANTED, upon consent of the self-represented counter-plaintiff, JERRY CAMPORA, JUNIOR ("Campora"); and it is further ORDERED that this motion (seq. #003) by counter-defendants, 13ETHANY HOOD and JAMES CHUA-MN Notary, for an Order, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7), dismissing the verified complaint, dated February 28, :2012, as asserted against these defendants, is hereby GRANTED for the reasons set forth hereinafter: and it is further ORDERED that this "motion in limine" (seq. #004) by Campora to "acknowledge the law regarding collateral attacks," is hereby DENIED: and it is further ORDERED that this motion (seq. #006) by counter-defendants, HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR HOMESTAR 2004-2, ROGER K. MCGREGOR and/or his successor, individually, and in his official capacity as CFO, IRENE M. DORNER in her official capacity as President of HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR HOMESTAR 2004-2, KELLIE ROHLING, in her Official capacity as Vice President [* 4] HSBC BANK USA v. CAMPORA, ET AL. INDEX NO. 6874/2012 FARNETI, J PAGE 4 of HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR HOMESTAR 2004-2, EVERHOME MORTGAGE COMPANY, and MICHAEL KOSTER and/or his successor, individually, and in his official capacity as President of EVERHOME MORTGAGE COMPANY ("HSBC Defendants"), for an Order, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7), dismissing the verified complaint as asserted against the HSBC Defendants, is hereby GRANTED for the reasons set forth hereinafter; and it is further ORDERED that this motion (seq. #007) by counter-defendants, SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, MARK D. COHEN, and MELVYN TANENBAUM, for an Order, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), (2), (5), (7) and (8), dismissing the verified complaint as asserted against these defendants, is hereby GRANTED for the reasons set forth hereinafter; and it is further ORDERED that this motion (seq. #008) by Campara in opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by the HSBC defendants, is hereby DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that this duplicative motion (seq. #009) by Campara in opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by the HSBC defendants, is similarly DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that this motion (seq. #010) by Campara in opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by counter-defendants, BETHANY HOOD and JAMES CHUA-MN Notary, is hereby DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that this cross-motion (seq. #011) by counterdefendants, ROBERT GROSSER and HOMESTAR MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, for an Order, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7), dismissing the verified complaint as asserted against these defendants, is hereby GRANTED for the reasons set forth hereinafter; and it is further ORDERED that this motion (seq. #012) by Campara in opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by counter-defendants, SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, MARK D. COHEN, and MELVYN TANENBAUM, is hereby DENIED; and it is further [* 5] HSBC BANK USA v CAMPORA, ET AL. INDEX NO. 6874/2012 FARNETI, J. PAGE 5 ORDERED that this motion (seq. #013) by Campora in opposition to the cross-motion to dismiss filed by counter-defendants, ROBERT GROSSER and HOMESTAR MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, is hereby DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the Court, sua sponte, dismisses the remainder of the complaint herein in its entirety. In this action, Campara, labeling himself "counter-plaintiff," has drafted and filed a complaint entitled "Verified Counterclaim," dated February 28, 2012 and bearing the caption above, wherein he seeks the following relief against the "counter-defendants": (1) a temporary restraining Order and preliminary injunction; (2) damages based upon fraud; (3) to vacate "a void judgment and collateral attack"; and (4) a constructive trust. The complaint is accompanied by twenty-eight exhibits, and the footer found at the bottom of all twenty-five pages thereof contains the words, "Counter Claim & Collateral Attack." This action stems from a prior foreclosure action under Index No. 43034/2009, where the plaintiff therein, HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR HOMESTAR 2004-2, sought to foreclose a mortgage dated April 13, 2004, executed by Campara in the principal sum of $513,000.00 affecting the real property commonly known as 1 Market Path, Setauket, New York. Plaintiff had alleged that Campora failed to make the monthly mortgage payments since May 1,2009. By Order dated July 27,2010 (Cohen, J.), the Court granted the plaintiff's application for summary judgment and for the appointment of a referee. Notably, that Court expressly found that the plaintiff had standing to commence the foreclosure action as the proper assignee of the subject mortgage. After the Order of July 27,2010, Campora filed at least five applications seeking various relief, including, among other things, to vacate the Order of July 27,2010, and to dismiss the foreclosure complaint based upon lack of standing and fraud. All of his applications were denied. Furthermore, Campora filed a Notice of Appeal from the Order of July 27,2010, which was dismissed by Decision and Order of the Appellate Division, Second Department dated December 13, 2010. [* 6] HSBC BANK USA v. CAMPORA, ET AL INDEX NO 6874/2012 FARNETI, J PAGE 6 Campora has now filed the instant action seeking the relief described hereinabove, and has raised the identical issues that were raised and decided in the related foreclosure action. The counter-defendants have filed the motions to dismiss as delineated above, seeking to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of, among other things, res judicata, collateral estoppel, and failure to state a cause of action For the following reasons, the Court finds that Campora's complaint must be dismissed in its entirety. New York law analyzes res judicata questions using a transactional approach. Once a claim has been adjudicated, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred. This is true even if the new allegations are based upon different theories or seek a different remedy (see O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353 [1981]; Matter of Allstate tns. Co. v Williams, 29 AD3d 688 [2006]). It is well-settled that if the party against whom res judicata is invoked had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim in a prior proceeding based on the same transaction, but did not raise it therein, he will be barred from raising it in a subsequent action (Browning Ave. Realty Corp v Rubin, 207 AD2d 263 [1994]). Generally, a set of facts will be deemed a single "transaction" for res judicata purposes if the facts are closely related in time, space, motivation, or origin, such that treating them as a unit would be convenient for trial and would conform to the parties' expectations (see Smith v Russell Sage Coli, 54 NY2d 185 [1981]). Moreover, in order to invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel, two well-settled requirements must be satisfied: "First, the identical issue necessarily must have been decided in the prior action and be decisive of the present action, and second, the party to be precluded from relitigating the issue must have had a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination" (Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449 [1985]). The policies underlying its application are avoiding relitigation of a decided issue and the possibility of an inconsistent result (see Buechel v Bam, 97 NY2d 295 [2001]; Altegra Credit Co v. Tin Chu, 2006 NY Slip Op 3826 [2006]). In the instant matter, the Court finds that the doctrines of res judicala and collateral estoppel act as a bar to the instant action and the claims raised herein. P,s discussed, Campara repeatedly raised the same arguments in the related foreclosure action, to wit: jurisdiction, standing, and fraud, among others, which were wholly and repeatedly rejected by the Court on numerous occasions. [* 7] HSBC BANK USA v CAMPORA, ET AL. INDEX NO 6874/2012 FARNETI, J. PAGE 7 Accordingly, Campara is barred from rel/tigating those claims in this plenary action Indeed, Campara himself has designated this action as a collateral attack on the foreclosure action, In view of the foregoing, these motions to dismiss Campara's complaint are all GRANTED, and the Court, sua sponte, dismisses Ihe remainder of the complaint in its entirety. Finally, Campara has filed certain documents with the Court entitled: "Ruling Re Counter-Defendants' and Third Party Defendants' Motions to Dismiss by Rachael C Anello"; "Ruling Re Counter-Defendants' and Third Party Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by Richard A Gerbino"; "Ruling Re CounterPlaintiff's Motion to Strike Michael C. Hefter's Motions"; and "Ruling Re Robert Grosser's and Homestar Mortgage Services' Cross-Motion to Dismiss by David S. Kritzer," which all provide Campara's "rulings" on the various motions to dismiss at bar. Campara has evidently conjured up an alternative legal universe In which he is the sovereign and the courts merely exist as ministerial bodies to do his bidding. This Court will not countenance any such conduct by Campara in the future. The foregoing constitutes the decision and Order of the Court. Dated; September 21, 2012 ~,/) ' '/ >< li-;Ju'/() FINAL DISPOSITION _c ' ttOt>¥'iO'SEPHFARNETI I\clfng Justice X ~ Supreme Court NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.