American Home Mtge. Serv., Inc. v McGhee

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

American Home Mtge. Serv., Inc. v McGhee 2012 NY Slip Op 32983(U) December 10, 2012 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: 24967-10 Judge: Denise F. Molia 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] COPY INDEX '0., 24967-10 SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK IAS PART 39 - S{IFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: Bon. DENISE F. MOLIA Justice of tht' Supreme Court MOTION DATE: 5-23-12 ADJ. DATI<:: 5-27-12 MOT. SEQ. #, OOI-MolD ---------------------, AMRRICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING,INC, SHAPIRO, DICARO & BARAK, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiff 250 Mile Crossing Blvd., Suite One Rochester NY 14624 Plaintiff, J -againstRICHARD MCGHEE .lkJ. RlCHARD F. MCGHEE: ROSLYN MCGHEE; HSBC RANK NEVADA, N.A., .nd "JOHN DOE #]" through "JOHN DOE #10", the last ten names being fictitious and unknown to the PlaintifL the persons or parties intended being the persons or parties, ifany, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the mortgaged premises described in Ihe complaint, Defendants. ----------------------, Upon the followmg p:lpers numbered 1 to 13 PETER C. KAITERIS, ESQ. Attorney for Defendant Richard McGhee aJk/a Richard F. McGee 629 Route 112, Suite 1 Patchogue, NY 11772 ROSLYN MCGHEE Defendant Pro Se 1433 Veranda Chase Drive Lawrenceville, GA. 30044 read olll11is motion for summary judgmclll: Notice of MOlioniOrt!er to Show Cause and supporting papers I 12 _ Notice of Cross Motion and SUPP0l1ing papt'rs ____ : Answering Affidavits and supporting papers ; RcplYlIlg Affidavits and supporting papers _____ ; Other letter - 13 ; (.md "flCI I,c",il,g eOUlI~e1 ill SUpptllt <1nd opposed h") lilt: "lotion) it is. ORDERED that this unopposed moiion (001) by the plaintiff for, mter alia, an order: (I) pursuant 10 CPLR 3111 awarding summary Judgment 111 favor and striking the defendant its Richard McGhee also known as Richard F. McGec·s answer and counterclaim; (2) pursuant to CPLR 1014 amending the caption; (3) pursuant 10 RPAPL 1321 appointing a referee to compute ,lt1lounlS due: and (4) awarding Ihe costs of this motion to the plalntifC is detenlllllcd as in(!Jcalcd * below: ~lI1c1lt IS rut,ther ORDERED that the plclinliffis dm;cteJ to serve a copy of this Order with llotlce or entry upon opposing counsel and upon all parties who have appearcd herein pursuant to CPLR 1101 (b)II), (2) or (3) within thirty (30) days of the datc herein and to file the affidaVIt ofscrvlce wilh the Clerk of the Cnun; and It If further [* 2] ATl1l'rTCClIl Hume Mlge SCl"\i. Inc. v McC;l1cc Indc.\ No. ] !l-2.oj.l)(i7 P.=:. ') ORDERED that the plui!ltlrris directed to serve a copy urthls LtpUIlthe Calelldal- Clerk 0l'tl115 Court. Order with notIce of Its enll}' rile plaintll'!' eOIlllllcnced thi s reSJ(icntlal CoreeInsure action by the Iiling of a summons <IIld complaint on July 13, 20 I() alleging thM Rich~ml McGhee also known as Richard F. rVlcCicc (I1elTInaltcr the dc!cndan( Illmtgagor) clellluited III repaYing an a fixed rate note III the pnnclpal Slim oj'S l5(),O()O.OO. The note d,lted February 15, 200() provides for the repayment of interest Clnd prinCipal to the ongillallcnder, American Home Mortgage (Amencan), III monthly Installments of approximately $890.33 lor thiny years commencing 011April 1, 20U6 through to the Illatunty date M,neh I, 20](i. As security for the loan, the defendant mortgagor and the defendant Roslyn McGhee gave American a mortgage also dated February 15,1006 against the real property known as 8 ()Ih Avenue, HU1l1mgton Station, New York 11746 (the property). The mortgage mdieates that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) was acting solely as a nomillee for American and its successors and assigns and that, for the purposes ofrecording the mortgage, MERS was the mortgagee of record. The note contains an undated endorsement by American in blank and Without recourse. By assignment dated November 18, 2009, MERS as IlOllllllee for Amen can allegedly transferred its Interest in the mortgage to the plaintiff. In tile complain!, the plaintiff alleges, mter 'lila, that the defendant mortgagor allegedly defaulted under the terms orlhe note and mortgage by failing to make monthly payments on September 1,2009 despite due demand; and that, as a I'esult, the plall1tiffhas ejected to declare due and oWlIlg the entire unpaid balance of principal, together with applicable interest issue was .lamed hy service of the defendant mortgagor's answer dated August 23, 20] O. By his ans\,ver, the defendant mortgagor denies all of the material allegations in the complainl and asserts as a '"first" counterclaim ,lgainst the plainti t'f'and as a re18tcd cross-claim against Roslyn McGhee, fraud In the inducement and in the c\ccution ora dced ddled Fchru<lry] 5, lO()G whereby the deJend:m( 1ll()rlg~1gortransferred hIS 1Jlterest Jl1the property as sole tenant to himsel f and Roslyn McGhee ,15 Joint [enallis \vith rights of survivorship. By 11 collnterc Ialln ,llld eross-c Iili m, the d efendan! mortgagor seeks monetary tbm ugcs ,llld is alleges [hat AmeriC<lll, whom l1e refers to us "the plaintlfc- misrepresented the naturc oCthe financl,titr,llls,lCtJOIl ,1Sd '".SIlnplc rclll1:lnce" of the property, hult1l<l1 the S,llnc IJ1cluded ,I gin ul' equI!y! ofone-lwlrofllis illlcrest therelll to "'the pl,lInlllrs" employee. the dcfCndallt, Roslyn McC;hce. l3y Its reply. the pl,lI11tllldenics all ,,(material allcg,l1l011S 111 delclld,llltlllor(gdsor's the c(JIIIl1L'rcl:lllll.<lnd asserts dS (Ollr :,lIlirmClilve defenses' the d(.'knd'll1tlTlOrtgagor's J;llILlI"C S1:l1l',I to C,lllSC(l1'uctiol1. ~I defellse IOllndcd upon dOclIlllen(d'-y eVIdence pursll,ln( to CPLR 1211 (<1)(I): ,Ill ,iI"rlrnW!IV~dcl'ctlscs ahliLlhle pursu,lllt to CPLR 3()18 (bl. and d b,II' to the dcrcndantl1lortg:l~()r·r.; Clall1lS pUrsUiln( to the doell-illl's (lrestoppcl. \\';liver. r:1l1i"icatl,111, 1:lches ,lIld/or unclc,11l h:,lIJds. Thc I'ClTldlllll1gdcl'i:nd,lllts h,1\'e not :lppc:1I"l'd 01"al1s\'il'rcd the culllpl:111l1(see, CPLR 3(j18 fill- 3111 () 11]1) [dp. ,Illd il is lloted til,ll the cross-claim dul's nu! dcm,me! ,111 answer (sec. CPLR .1 [* 3] Amcricanllomc Mtge. Servo Inc. \' McGhcc [tl,!c:-; No., 11)-1..j.9()7 p., :1 ~. Accordlllg 10 tlk' records maintained by the COllrt'S computerized databasc. ill compliance with CPI.R .1..j.08a settlemcnt conference \Vas held in this Court's Foreclosure Conk'rence Part 011 Scpt(:mbl'l" 1(1,20 I (). 011 lil;ll dute, [he lklendant lllortg'lgor did not appear 01"utllcrW1SC par-ltL'I]JHtC. As a resulL this matter \V:lSreferred;Js all IAS case. Accordingly, the conference requirclllenl imposed upon the Court by CPLR 3408 illl,Vor Ihe Laws or 2008, eh. 472 § J-a as amended by La\\·5 of 2009 Ch, jlll 10 has been satisfied. No further cOl1f~rel1cc is requircd under any stalll(l'. law Dr rulc. * The: plamtlfTnow movcs for, inter alia, an order: (1) pursuant to CPLR 3212 ,1\Varding summary judgmcnt in its f~lvor and striking the defendant mortgagor's answcr and counterclaim. (2) pursuant to CPLR !014 amcndlllg the caption by c,(clsing the fictilious defendants llamcJ herein as John Doc # I through John Doc #1 0; (3) pursuant to RPAPL ~ 1321 appointing a referee to compute :\I1l()Unts due; and (4) awarding the costs of thiS lllo1iolltO the plailllifr. No oppoSltlon has hccn tlIed in response to the plaintiffs motion. Ii is well settled that the proponent ora summary judgment motion bears the initial burden of making a pnma facie showll1g of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufTicient proof to demonstrate the absence o[ any material Issues of fact (Nonvest Bau/( Milllle,wta, N.A. v Sub/ojf, 297 AD2d 722, 723, 747 NYS2d 559 [2d Dept 2002]). Failure to make such a prima faclc showing requires denial of the motion regardless oCthe sufficiency of the opposition papers (De Sall1is 1'Romeo. 177 AD1d 616, 616. 576 NYS2d 323 [2d Dept 1991 ]). A pla1l11iffin a mortgage foreclosure action establishes <l prima faCIe case [or summary judgment by submission of the 111011gage,the mortgage note, bond or obligation, and evidence of default (sec, Valley Nat/. Bank l'Delitscire, 88 AD3d 69],930 NYS1d 477 [2d Dept 2011]; Wells FlIl'go Balik l' KlIr/a, 71 AD3d 1006, 896 NYS2d 681 [2d Dept 2010); WIlSIt. Mm. Bank, f:A. I' O'Collllor, 63 ,"'-03d 832, 880 NYS2d 696 (1d Dcpt 2009J). The burden then shIfts to the delct1d:mtto c!clllonstT,llC ··lhe cxisiencc Orll tn,\b!c lSSU\:' of" far! as tn a h011iJ fide defense to the action. such as W<Ilver. estoppeL bad raith. lI·aud. or oppresslvc or lI11conscioll<lble conduct on the pari of the plainliff' (CajJ,'·tone Bus. Credit, LLC I' Imperia Family Reltf~J'. LLC 70 AD3d 882883.895 NYS2d 199 [ld Dcpt 2010]). In thc lllst<lnt casc, the plaintiff produced Ihe endorsed note llnd the lllOrlgage executed hy (he defendant mortgagor, the assignmcllt, as wcll as evidence of Iwnj1DYIllCI1( (.I·('C, Fed. Home Loan Mtg('. Corp. I' /(antstafliis, 237 AD2d 55R. 655 N\'Sld ()~ I [211Dcpt 19971; First T/'llst Natl. ASSII. l' Meisds. 234 I\D2d 414, 65 J NYS2d 111 r.1d Dcpt I()9())1. As the plaintl!"r duly dcmollstraleu its entit1cment to judgmcll! as a mailer of 1;1\\·.Ihe hurdell 01' proof shifted 10 Il1l' ddendant 1l1Orlg,lgor (sct'. IISBe Bank US-' I' Merrill. J 7 AD:1d .~()(). S30 NYS2d )1)8 r:1d Dcpt 2007j)_ Acconllngly. it was lIlClIlllbclllUPOlllllcdcfl'llt1<nlt ll1orl':;:lgm lu pmdlll'c evidelltial'y proll!" in ;ldl1ltssiblc f\)I"111 sunicicnt 1\)dCnlOnslratc the cxislcnce (ILl In;lbk issue or I~Klas 10 a bona Jlde defense to the action ist'c. Baron Assoc .. LLC l' Garcia Grollp Fnters .. fltc. % AD3d 79.\ 9..j.(),"'{S2d (Ill [2d Dept 2011], IJ"a."flillgtoll.lfll/. \ Balik I' 77..j.. (J39 NYS2d n [2d Dc-p! 2012]: .-lal11t!.'iFundillg :\D3d (N1, ;;';..j..i NYS2L1 ()M) [1<1 Dc))t lO()71). ,-'alt!lIt.:ia. 1)2 :\D.3d lO11" I'/loustoll . ..j...j. [* 4] Anh.'ric<ln Home Mlgc_ Sen·. Inc. v !VlcGhee Indcx No 11)·2-1-%7 Pg.-IThe dcfcndam lllongJgor faded to raise a triable issue of fael as the general denials set tanh In his answer arc insufficient. as a mailer oCJaw, to dcf~at the plaintUTs unopposed illation (sec . .-III'are;: I' Pro,~l'ecrHospital, h8 NY2d 320, 508 NYS2d 923 [1986]; F1agsta,. Halik I' Bell(~fio,.e, 94 /\.D~d 1044, t)4~ NYS2d 551 [2d DCpL20 12J; Argent Mtge. Co., LLC v Jf'1elltcsmur. 7lJ AD~d 1079.01.5 N\rS2d 1)51 r2d Dcpt1010]; Citibullk, N.A. I,Souto Geffell CO 13! AD2d 466. 647 .. NYS2d -l-h7 [I" Dept 1996J: Greater N. I'. Sav. Bank 1'1120 Relt/t)' IlIc.. 201 AD2d 1-1-8, 1J()8 NYSld -I-()lll-'1 Dcpt llJ94]; ING Balik FSB I' DiLug,;io, 2011 NY Misc LEXIS ()S07. 2011 WL 72(i7045, 2011 NY Slip Op 3::;S(iOU [SLIp Ct, Suffolk County, Dec. 28, 2011, Marlln, J 1). Fut·thel·, the dGlendant llloltgagor's answer, COI1Sistlllgsolely of general denwls, is WIthout apparent merit (sec. 1J'ell.~' Fargo Balik Millll., NA, I' Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 837 NYS2d 247 [2d Dcpt 20071; (I, Balik Nat!, ASSII, I' Madero, 80 AD3d 751, 915 NYS2d 612 [2d Dcpt 201 11). In any event, in instances where a defendant raIls to oppose a motion for summary judgment. the facls, as alleged ill the movll1g papers. may be deemed admitted and [here is, III effect, a cOllCCSSiOlllh81 no q lIcslioll of fact CX1Sts(see glll/en/ll.l', Kuehne & Nagel, Till.'. I' Baidell, 36 N)T2d 539, 309 NYS2d (167 [1975]; Madison Park 1111'S., LLe It Atlamic Lofts Corp., 33 Misc3d IlI5A, 941 NYS2d 538 (Sup Ct, Kings COUllty 2011]). Additionally, "uncontradicted facts are deemed admitted" (Tortorello v Larl)' M. Carlin, 260 AD2d 201, 206, 688 NYS2d 64 [1'1 DepL 1999]). u.s. Turning to the counterclaim, the essential clements of a cause of action for fraud arc ·-representation of a material existing fact, falsity, scienter, deception, and injury" (ClulIlllel Master COI]).\' Aluminum Ltd. Sales, Ille, 4 NY2d 403, 407, 176 NYS2d 259 [1958]), A party that has fraudulently Induced another to enter into a contract may be liable ill tOri for damages (New York Ulli\', \I COIlt!, /l1S. Co., 87 NY2d 308, 316, 639 NYS2d 283 [1995l; SaiJo l' Dellllall, 3 NY2d 155, 162,164 NYS2d 714 [1957]). To establish a cause of action for fraudulcnt induccment ll1 conjunction with the action for breach ofcontntci, the plaimifrmllst show that defendant breached a dutydlslinct frolll his contr:lctll<1i dUlies, noL' ~,Inlplylh~H he laded to f'll[fill promises or rlJturc acts (see, Weft;; I'Smith. n I AD2J 518, ()47 NYSld 236 [1d Dept 199(1). Thus, (J plal11l1ffmust present proof that (I) Ihe dcfcntlantll1ade material representations that were falsc, (2) the defendant knew the representatIons were 1~lse and mad·,:' the111With the lIltCllI to deceive the plaintiff. (3) the plall111ffJustiflably rclictl on the dcfcmhllll's representations, and (4) tile plailltlO-was Injured as a result ofLhe defendant's rcprcscllulliollS (Challllel Master Corp. I' Aluminum Ltd. Sales. Inc., 4 NY2d 4()~. slIlJnr ;11407, 113-1-1 OH'Ilt'rs Corp. I' Ger(;;. 123 AD2d 850. 851. SO? NYS2d 4h4lld Depl 198hj). Each or the foregoing clements must he supported hy factual allegations contallling the details eonstitullllglilc \\TOllg sufficient to 5atls/\' CPLR 1016 (b) (Blacf,; j' Chiffelldell. 69 NY1d 6()5, ()()S, 511 NYS2d .'n~ ()S(li: !'riol" COIltf///lflS, \' /I,/el Telecolllllts, Co!"p .. 24R /\D2d -1-53. ..j.5..j..()()\) \iYSld -:\7(1 11 Ild i)('Pl 1\)1)8]) A causc tl r ;lC!lnll It) reco\'cr damages flW rraudu knt eonce;:] Imcnt requ ires. in addi IiOll In a!!L'g;ltiotls of"."C1ClltCr. eliallce. and damages. an allegation that the dcrcndam had a duty to r disclose 111<1lcnalll1fQrln<Jtion alld that it fllded to do 50 (High Titles, LLC I' DeMichele, 88 :\D3d ()5..J., j57, 9.i I NYS2d 37712<1 Dcpt 2(111), vVhCt-C C<lllseof ,lelion is b,lscd ()Il a ( (l 1111srcpre5cntalinn or Il"aud. "1il(' rirrumsta11':es COIlStlll1\1llgthe \\Tong shall hc stated in dclail" [* 5] ,-\mL'rican Ilolll~ MtgL'. Sef\'_lnc. v McGhee Index No.: ]1l-1.J.9(J7 Pg.5 (CPLR 3[J16 [bj; sec. Mmu!arin Trading Ltd. l' JVildensteill, 16 NY3d 173. 178.919 NYS2d 465 [':011]). Furthl..T. the parol evidence ruk: uocs not bar a party from showing that a wrillcn agrccment was obwlllC'd by fb.wdulcJ1\ inducement; howC'ver. in order to defeat a summary .Iudgl1lCtlll1lotintl. such cvidcnctJ l1lust be genuinc and based on proaL 110tconclusory assertions (l/ogall & CO, I' Satt/1'1I Mgt. IIIC., 78 AD2d 837, 8)7-838, 433 NYS2d 168 [1-" Dcpt I ()SIJ"I, see, Chiman Assoc.\", I' Pal/I, ()6 NY2d S7D, 49S NYS2d 344 [1986]). By its submissions. the plaintifC as a defendant on the counterclaim, establislK:d its prima t~lcic cntitlement to Judgment as a matter of law by showing that American, as its predecessor, o\wd 110duty to thc defendant morlgagor to prevent either Its agents or Roslyn McGhee rl"Olll Ind uClIlg hlln to enter into the SLI bjcct mortgage transact] 011,or the tnl1ls rer a r an oWl1ershIJ) in(crcsl in the property (see, Elibu I' ElIbu, 78 AD3d 761,911 NYS2d 402 [2d Dep! 201 OJ; Mathurin \I Lost & Foullt! Recol'ery, LLC, 65 AD3d 617, 884 NYS2d 462 [ld Oept 2009]; BeckfOl'd l' Northeastern MtKe. IIII', Corp._ 262 AD2e! 436, 692 NYS2d 412 (2d Dept [999]; Wells Fm1Jo Bank, N.A. VElloyam, 2010 NY Slip Op 32046U, 2010 NY Misc LEXIS 3611 [Sup 0, Queens County, Aug 3, 20 I0, WeiSS, J .J; see a/so, Emigrant Mtge, Co. Illc. v Fitzpatrick, 95 AD3c1 1 I()9, 945 NYS2d 697 r2d Dept 2012], rel'g in part, 29 Misc3d 746, 906 NYS2d 874J). Further, it IS well settled that a party who signs a document without any valid excuse for having railed to read it is "conclusively bound" by its temlS (GiIlm(1I11' Chase Ma"hattan Bank, 73 NYld [, II, 537 NYS2d 787 [1988]; see, KMK Safety COllsul1i1lg, LLC" Jeffrey M. Browll Assoc., Inc., 72 AD3d 650. 897 NYS2d 649 [2d Dept 2010J). To thc extent that the defendant 1ll0rlg,lgor signed an indenture to McGhee, Without rcvlCwing it or knO\ving the contents of It, he risked that thc transaction at issue would be more than a simple refinance (see genera/(v, Stephell.'wlIl' Terroll-Carrera, 2012 NY Mise LEX'S 2915, 2012 WL2636004, 2012 NY Slip Op 31(Jl4U (Sup CL Suffolk County, June 5, 2012, Gaui11o, J.J). The loan instruments subl11iltcd by the plaintlffin support of its 1110tiol1, hich included the note and the mortgage, demonstrate that w the tcnn:.: crthe ,';il!~lC \Vcr'.: II.l!ly set Corth!11 \11('lo,lIl dOCUtllCllls. The plain1.ilTalso suhll1]!1ed;.1 copy oClhe recorded II1dcllture dated F'ebnwlY J 5,2006 and s\vorn to before tI notary puhlic wherehy lhc defendant mortgagor transferred his interest in the property <ISsole tCll<llltto hlllls..:l!' and Ro~IYIl McGhee as joint tenants with rights or survl\'orship (sec. Heal'!'11 I' Gowall. -I-() D.ld A 583,835 NYS2d ()41 [2d Dcpt 2007])_ Mon.:ovcr. tile ClHll1tercl,lIlll, which ]s based upon fi'<ludulen! I1llSrCprCSCIllali01lS dill! jj·t1uduknt conce:dmcnL is delicicnt as failing to mcct the heightened pkacling requirements lll' CPLR .'lJj() (h) (. ¢ ¢. .. )'(C';" I' Doukas, I)S ADJd 1024.951 NYS2d 17.'l2d DeJl! 20111: /-figh cc Tides, U.C l' DI',Illicheil'. sg A[)Jd 9:'i-L slflwu: ./ol/(,s I' OTN Enrer . ¢ //lc._ R~ i\D3d 1027.1)22 NYS~d Sin [2d Depl 2011]; Mora/es I' .-IMS Mrge. Sen's" Inc. (,9 !\D3d (,91. 897 NYS2d loJ [2d Dcpt 2f)]1)]; macli )' ChittendclI. ()()N)'ld h(,) . .I'll/mil. In lh~ coulllcrcl'1]l1l. the ([cll':IlIi,1I1t 111orl'-'.'I\..!..()1'IhH set forth the d,llcs or lJct~lils Ur,IIlY :111cgcdITlI.Sreprc.:.'sellt:ltioIlS 11,1S madc speClfic,111>' bv A;n:rican' s rcprcscl1lati \-CSor by Roslyn McGhee to hIm (set'. Mom/es '0 .-f iHS Mfge. SI'/'l'S., [ ;/(' . ht) !\ D3d ()t) I. supra; U.S. Balik Narl. ASSII, I' Fields. ]1) 12 \!Y .\11 isc LEX IS -1-025.1012 \,VL 3h47712, 2011 NY Slip Op 3110-J.U [Sup Ct. Surrolk COLlllty. Jndn No.: 10:3271-1-. Aug_ 1'-1.2(J[~. Pines. J.!; Emigrant Jf,ge. lO., /I1C. l' Bli;;:ard, 2011 NY ivIi"c 1 EXIS 1<J5.J.,2011 NY Slip Op cr, [* 6] ;\Illcric..ln )lome MlgC. Serv. Inc. v McGhee Intie:\ No.: 1O-2-t967 Pg. () 31SoSSl i [Sup CI, Richmond County. Apr. 15,1011. .\'laltese . .1.1). In any evenL as the molion is unopposed. !he defcndant mortgagor has failed 10 come J"orward with any evidence substantiating his contention that American's agents fraudulently induced him 10 execule t1Jc subjecl mortgage and indenture (see, Argellf Mtge. Co., I,LC I' MellleSllll(l. 7') ADJd 1079. SIfIJl"l/;ChemiCliI Balik I' Bowers, 228 AD2d 407. 643 NYS2d 653 12d Dcpt (1)%): SC'(' also. Scal'sdale Na/I. Balik & Trust Co. vS/ein. 151 AD2d 4M( 542 NYS2d 257 [2u Dep! I()S()]; Barclays /Jallk ofNeH' York, N.iI. I'Sokol, 128 AD2d 492. 512 NYS2d 419 [2d Dept I ')87j: see §!J_'/lem/(L 1Fillef(rad v New York lJlliJ'. Med. Clr., 64 NY2d 851, 487 NYS2d 31(1 II (851). There IS also 110evidence that American, as the onglllallllortgagcc, had any relationship wilh Roslyn McGhce, or participated ill or had Knowledge or Roslyn McCihce's ~lIlcgcd fraudulent conduct (sec, Miller Plallning Corp. I' Wells, 253 J\D2d 859, (;78 NYS2d ~40 [2d Depl 1998l Chemical Bank I' Bowers, 228 AD2d 407, supra). Under lhese circumstances, the Coun finds that the defendanl mortgagor railed to rebut the plaintiffs prima facie showing of its entitlement to sumillary judgment requested by it (see. Flags/a/" Bank v Bellajiore, 94 AD3d 1044, slIl'ra; Al'gell1 flltge. Co., LLC I' Mell/esww, 79 AD3d 1079, supra; see general/v, Hermitage IllS, Co. Trance Nile Club, Inc" 40 AD3d 1032,834 NYS2d 870 [:2el Dep[ 2007]). The plaintiff. therefore, is awarded summary judgment in its favor and against Ihe defendant mortgagor (see, Argeu/ MIge. Co., LLC v Melllesoll(l, 79 AD3d 1079, supra; Fed. Home Loan fl.I/tge. COlp. l' Karas/at/lis, 237 AD2d 558, supra; see general()', ZUCke1'11Ulll I' City of Nelli York, 49 NY2d 557, 427 NYS2d 595 (1980]). Accordingly, the defendant mOl1gagor's <1ns\.veris stricken and the counterclaim is dismissed. The defendant mortgagor's cross-claim against Roslyn McGhee, however, is severed and continued (see, CPLR 3213 [e]' [IJ). The branch 0 (the instant IllotlOn wherelll the plaint i rr seeks an order amending the caption by '.:::'\cisingthe !ICl!tlrJlISdefendants named herein ~ISJohn Doe # 1 through Julm DO'..',Iii 0, is gr~\lllcd pllrsu:1I1( to CPLR 1024. By Its suhmlssions, [he plal11tlfr estahlished the b:1Sis ror tIllS reliCI' (see, F/agstar Blink I' n(!II(~fiorc, 94 AD3d 1044, supra; Neighborhood fI(}Us. Sen's. lV.): Cil.1', II/C. l' Melt:er. h7 ADJd 872. 889 NYS2d (127 [2e1Dcpl 2009J) All future proceedings shall hl' capliollcd ,!Cconlrngly. l3y ils moving papers. the plamll fJ"further established [he dCr~IUh III ;lIlswcring on the part or the dclelldan1. I ISBC' Rank Nl.'vada, N.A. (HS8C) since HSBC never interposed ,111 answer 10 the complaint (scc- RPAPL ~ 1321: USBe 8allk USA. iV.A.. I' Roldllfl, 80 AD3d 5h6. 91-1-N"{S2d (1-1-7 12d Ikp! 21)11 J: E11IigraJlt Sm'.\". Balik t' Sia. 1012 NY tvlisc LEXIS 3377. 2()11 WL 3 U-tll-L 201 ~ i\'Y Slip Op 31 SS-tL rSup C1. Surrolk County. July I I. ]012. ivlartin,.I. I). An:orJlIlgly.lhl' dcf~lldl 0 J"II S BC is liXl'd and deterlll ined. Since the plai 11tff has lJl'cn awarded sUllllllary J udgnK'1l1 i <l!.!.<lirlst dd\.'lldarll mnrl!.!.a!.!.or.,md has l'stahlished a default ill answerrng or ,Ippearing hy I-lSBC, th ¢.... ll~l' plalntrlT is entitled to ;1~ ~'dcr ;lppointing a referee.: to compu!e ;111101l1l1s ulldcr the subject due I]()tl' ;lIld mortgage (Si'c'. RP.:\PL ~ 1311' OCll'l'1/ Fed. BalIk FSB 1'MilIl>/', IS .'\D3u .:::"27.7l)..j. !\YS2d (lS() [2d Depl21)(J5]: 'f. Fed. BalIk I' C/Iase, 22() AD2d I in4. ()..j.1 NYS2d .. -l() [3d Dep! + I I)I)(]]; Balik. (~IE. _ls;a, Ltd, l' Sm;'/,. 2C11AD2d 522, (1m NYS2d 4.\ I [7...1 Depl 19()..fj) . [* 7] American Horne J'vltgc Serv, Inc. v McCihce lnde\: )\In. 1(J-2496 7 IJg. 7 TIll' pLlillul'l's requcst I(,r the cosh 01"t1115 motion is denied withoLll prcjulilcc, k'<lvC'10 dOl'uITlcnliilion len costs:l! the limc oCsubmlssion orthcJlIdgl11cl11. t'Ctll'\\' lq)l.'11pmpcr /\cconllngly, 11m;motion by 1he plaintilTls determliled as indicated abovc, The prop()scd nrdcr apIK\ltlting a referee lo compute purslIanlto RPAPL q 132] has been signed snnulwncoLlsly hercwith ,15 modi IIcd by the COLlrl. " -- [);lll'd .. !J-t'-·r:erll.. ir:L __l12L oto 1;2./ FINAL DISPOSITION x NON-H\'AL 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.