American Home Mtge. Servicing, Inc. v McGhee

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

American Home Mtge. Servicing, Inc. v McGhee 2012 NY Slip Op 33120(U) December 10, 2012 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 10-24967 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] snORT FOR'l ORIlEIt py INDEX '0.,24967-10 SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK IAS PART 39 - SUFFOLK C'OtfNTY PRESENT: HOll. DENISF: F. MOLIA ,Justice of the Supreme Court MOTION DATE, 5-23-12 ---------------------, AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE AD,f. DATE: SERVICING,INC, SHAPIRO, D1CARO & BARAK, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiff 250 Mile Crossing Blvd., Suite One Rochester, NY 14624 Plaintiff, -againstRICHARD MCGHEE a/kla RICHARD F. MCGHEE: ROSLYN MCGHEE: HSBC BANK NEVADA, N.A., and ",fOHN DOE #1" through "JOHN DOE #10", the last ten names bemg fictitious and unknown to the Plamtiff the persons or parties intended being the persons or parties, if any, having or claiming an interest III or lien upon the mortgaged premises described in the complaint, Defendants, _~ 5-27-12 MOT. SEQ. #: OOI-MotD .x PETER C. KAITERIS, ESQ. Attorney for Defendant Richard McGhee aJkJa Richard F. McGee 629 Route 112, Suite 1 Patchogue, NY 11772 ROSLYN MCGHEE Defendant Pro Se 1433 Veranda Chase Drive lawrenceville, GA. 30044 Upon the lallowmg papers numbered I to 13 read 011this motion for summary judgment: Notice of MotioniOnJer 10 Show Cause and supporting papers ] 12, Notice of Cross Motion :l11dsupPolting pil]K'rs ____ ; Answering Affidavits and supporting papers , Rcplymg Affidavits and supporting papers _____ ; Other Leiter - I:; : (ulld "An ltc~liii5 cOt,lIs,l:n s"I'po,1 slld 0pp0.'ltd 10 llie lllotion) il is, ORDERED that this ullopposed Illolion (001) by the plaintilT for, inter alia. an order- (I) purs1I3m to CP I.R 3211 awanJ ing summary j udgml'nt ill its favor and strik ing (he defendant Richard McGhee also kno\,\'n as Richard F. MeGec's answer and countcrclaim; (2) pursuaJ11.1O CPLR 1024 amcnding the caption: (3) pursuant to RPAPL § 132! appointing a referee to compute amounts duc; and (4) awarding the costs of this motion to the plaintiff, is determined as indicatcd below; ;Jlld it is further ORDERED lhat the plallltTfTTS directed to serve a copy ortbls Order wilh nOtice of entry upon opposing counsel amlupon all parties who have appeared herein pursuant to CPU-Z 11 m (h)n). (1) or 13) within lhlrty (.30) clays of the date herem <lnclto filc the affidavit ofserviec with the Clerk ortllc Court; and it if further [* 2] Al1lcrican Homc Ivllge Servo Inc v McGhee Index No.: 10-24967 Pg. I ORDERL·D thatlhc plulIlliffis directed to serve Ucopy of this Order with notice of its elltlY upon the Calendar Clerk or this Court. The p[aillllfT commenced tillS residctllial foreclosure action by the filing of a summons and complaint on July n, 20JO alleging that Richard McGhee also known as Richard F. McGee (herclOartcr lhe dcfcndanlmortgagor) defaulled in repaying an a fixed rate note in the prinCIpal sum or S ISO,aOO.oo, The note dated February 15, 2006 prOVides for the rcpayment of interest and principal to the original lender, American Home Mortgage (American), In monthly lnstallmcnts of approximately $899.33 for thirty yeurs commencing on Api'll I, 2006 through to the matunty date March 1, 203CJ. As security for the loan, the defendant mortgagor and the defendant Roslyn McGhee gave Amencan a mortgage also dated February 15, 2006 agall1st the real property known as 8 6'1l Avenuc, Huntington StallOn, New York 11746 (the property). The mortgage indicates that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, inc. (MERS) was acting solely as a nominee lor American and ils successors and assigns and that, for the purposes of recording the mortgage, MERS was the mortgagee orrccord. The note contains an undated endorsement by American in blank and without recourse. By assignment dated November 18, 2009, MERS as nominee for American allegedly transferred its interest in the mortgage to the plaintiff. In the complaint. the plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that the defendant mortgagor allegedly defaulted under the tCnllS ofthc note and mortgage by failing to make monthly payments on September 1, 2009 despite due demand; and that, as a result, the plaintiff has elected to declare due and owing the entire unpaid balance of principal, together with applicable interest. Issue was joined by service of the defendant mortgagor's answer dated August 23, 2010. By his answer, thc defcndantlllol1gagor denies all of the material allegations in the complain! cllld asserts as a "first" countcrclaim against the pl,lintirr'and as a related cross-claim against Roslyn McGhee, fraud in the lllducel11ent and in the e;xecllt.iQll ofa deed dated Fehrudry 1.\ 2()O(i whereby (ill' defendant mortgagor transfcrred hiS intercst III thc propcrty as sale tenant to hll1lsel r and Roslyn McGhce as Joinllcnants with nghts of survivorshIp. By hiS counterclaim and cross-claim, the dcfendanl mOl1gagof seeks monetary damages and allegcs that American, whom he refers to as "the plaintiff,"' misrepresented thc nature of tile financiallrallStlctlon as ,I "simple refinance" or the property. but that the same included a gl n of equity of onc-hal f of his interest therein lO "I he plainti n~s··employee. lhe defendant, Roslyn McGhee. By Its reply_ 'the plainti ff delllcs all of material allegations in the defendant mOl1gagor's Coulltcrc!alllL and asserts ~lSfour allinllative defenscs: the defendant mortgagor·s (~lilure to state a cause of action: a UCfCllS': fOlll1UCU upon doculllcntary cvidcnce pursuant to CPLR 32]1 (aH I): all affinn,ltive defenses available pursuant to CPLR 3018 (b): and a bar to the defendant mortgagor· s claims pUfsuantto thc doctrines ofestoppcL waiver. ratificatIon, lachcs and/or unclean hands. The rcmaining defendants have not appe3fed or answered the complainl (s('c. CPLR 30 IS [a1: 301 t) [dll. and it is 110ted that (ile cross-clailll docs not demand an answer (s('c, CPLR ,i{)l I). [* 3] American Home Mtge. Servo Inc \. McGhee lnclex No .. to-2...j.9b7 Pg. J Accordlllg 10 the records maintained by the Court's com]Jmcnzed database, in compliance with CPLR 3408 it settlemcnt conlcrcncc was held in this Court's Foreclosure Conference Part 011 September I(), 2010. On thaI date, the defendant mortgngor did not appear or otherwise particlpalc. As a result, thIs mallcr was rerc'lTed as an IAS casco Accordingly, the conference requlremcll! llllposed upon Ih...:Court by CPLR 3408 and/or tbe Laws 01'2008, eh. 472 § 3-a as amended by Laws of 2009 eh. S07 10 has been satisfied. No further conference is required under any statute, law or rulc_ * The plainti fCnow moves for, Inter alia, an order: (l) pursuant to CPLR 3112 awarding sUlllmary .Iudgment ill Its J~IVOrand strik ing the defendant mortgagor's an s\vcr and co unterc lai Ill; (2) pursuant to CPLR 1014 amendlllg the caption by excising the fictitiOUS dekndal1ts named herein as John Doc #1 through John Doe #J 0; (3) pursuant to RPAPL ~ 132] appOinting a referee to compute amounts due; and (4) awardlllg the costs of this motIon to the plaintiff. No opposition has been filed in response to the plainidTs motion. It is well settled that the proponent ofa summary judgment motion bears the initial burden of making a prima facie showing of entitlcment to judb'lllent as a matter of law, tendering sufficient proof to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (Norwest Bank Minlle.'wta, N.A, v Sabloff, 297 AD2d 721, 723, 747 NYS2d 559 [2d Dept 2002]). Failure to make such a prima facie showing requires denial of the motion regardless of the suffiCIency of the opposition papers (De Safffis v Romeo, 177 AD2d 61 G, 616, 576 NYS2d 323 [2d Dept 1991 )). A plaintiff in a mOl1gage foreclosure action establishes a prima facie case for sLlmlllary judgment by submission of the mortgage, the mortgage note, bond or obligation, and evidence of default (see, Valley Natl. Bank v Deutsclle, 88 AD3d 691,930 NYS2d 477 (2d Oept 2011]; Wells Fargo Bank t' Karla, 71 AD3d 1006,896 NYS2d 681 [2d Dept 2010]; Wash. j\1ut. 8mlk, F.A. t' O'C0/1I10t, 63 AD3d 832, SSO NYS2d 696 [lei Dept 2009]). The burden then shifts to the dcfcl1d:ml to c!clllollstr(l[C "Ihe existence of a triable issue of f,lC1as to a bona fide defense to the action, such as waiver. estoppel, bau faith, fraud, or oppressive or unconscIOnable conuuct on the pan of [he plainti (Capstolle Bus. Credit, LLC 11 Imperia Family Realty, LLC, 70 AD3d 882, 883. 895 NYS2d 199 (ld Dept 20 10)). In the instant case, the plaint! fr produced the endorsed note and the mOl1g<lgc executed by the defendant mortgagor, the assIgnment, as well as eVldencc of nonpayment (see. Fed. Home Loall M/ge. Corp. l' Karas/athis, 237 AD2d 558. 655 NYS2d 631 [2<1DCpl 1997"1: First Trust NMI. As.'Ift. t' Meisels. 234 ADld 414, ()5l NYS2d !21 [lei Dept 1q,)()]). As the plaintl ITduly demonstrated ils entillelllent to juclgmc!1l as a mallcr of Ia\V, the hut·den (ll"prool'shilted 10 (l1e dclcnt!anllllorlg;]gol-(scc.lfSBC Ballli USA I'Mel'rill, .17 ADJd 8()(). S:;o N'Y·Sld )')S [:id Dcpt 20()7J). Accordingly. It was l11cull1bcnlupon the dcCcmlant cr' as to a bona admiSSIble forl11 suffiCIent 10 dcmol1stnllc thc cnslcl1cc f~lC( fide defense to the action (s('e, Baroll AssoL' . ¢ LLC J' Garcia Group h-llfers., lue.. ')6 .!\D3d 793. <)..J.() NYS2d 611 [ld Dcpt 2011]; Washingtoll MIlt. Balik I' '·'alel/cia. 9:! AD3d 77..J.. 939 NYS2d 73 [ld Dept ~Ol.:!]; ...lames Funding C()Ip. I' 1-I0ust0I1 . ..J...J. !\D3d (,01. 843 NYS1d 660 [1d Ocp' 1tJ07i). 11101"1".\'-';01"l)rotllKc 10 ~~ of a triable Issue or cVldcl1tii"lrv IJroof in [* 4] American Home MlgC. Servo Inc, Index No.' 1()-2-1-9()7 Pg. 4 y McGhee Tht': defendant mortgagor failed to raise a triable issue of fact as the general denials set Jonh In his answer are lIlsurficienl. as a malleI' of law, to defeat the plaintl ffs unopposed motion (sec. All'Ure: I' ProspeCTIlo.'ipital, 68 NY2d 320. 508 NYS2d 923 [1986 j; Flags/ar Balik l' Bellafiore. 94 ADJd 1044,943 NYS2d 551 [2d Dept 2012]; Argen/ Mtge. Co., LLC I' Mell1e.wuur, 79 AD3d 1079,915 NYS2J 951 [2d Depl 2010]; Citiballk., N.A., I' Souto Ge.flell Co., 231 AD2d 466, 647 NYS2d 467 rl'l Ocpt 1(96); Greater N.)I, Sav, Balik v 1110 Rl!tIlty 111(',,202 AD2d 248, 608 NYS2d 463 [1,1 Dept 1994J; fNG Ballk FSB I' DiLuggio, 2011 NY Misc LEXIS 6507, 1011 WL 7267045.2011 NY Slip Op 33560U [Sup Ct, Suffolk County, Dec. 28, 201 I, Mart1l1, J.]). Further, the defendant lllol1gagor's answer, consisting solely of general denials, is without apparent merit (see, Wells Fargo Bllllk Millll., N.A. I' Mastropaolo, 42 AOJd,239, 837 NYS2d 247 [2d Dept 2007 J~L/, U.S. Balik Natl. Ass". v Madero, 80 AD3d 751, VIS NYS2d 612 [2d Depl 2011 ]), In any event, in instances where a defendant falls to oppose a motion for summary judgment, the facLs. as alleged in the moving papers, may be deemed admitted and there is, in effect, a concession that no qucstion of fact exists (see g(!l1(!ral~\', Kueh"e & Nagel, T"c. v Bahlen, 36 NY2d 539, 369 NYS2d 667 [1975]; Madisoll Park TilliS.,LLC II Atla11lic Lofts Corp., 33 Misc3d 1215A, 94! NYS2d 538 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2011]) Ad<.lltlonal1y, "uncontradicted facts are deemed admitted" (TortoJ'ello I' Larl)' M. Carlin, 260 AD2d 201,206,688 NYS2d 64 [l >I Depl' 1999]). Tuming to the counterclaim, the essential clements of a cause of action for fraud arc "representation ofa malerial existing facI, falsity. scienter, deception, and injury" (Channel Master Corp. \I Aluminum Ltd. Sales, TIlC,4 NY2d 403, 407, 176 NYS2d 259 [1958]). A party that has fraudulently induced another to enter into a contract may he liable In tort for damages (New York. U"iv. l' COlltl. IllS. Co., 87 NY2d 308, 316, 639 NYS2d 283 [1995]; Sabo \I Delman, 3 NY2d 155, 162, 164 NYS2d 714[1957]). To establish a cause of action for fraudulent inducement in conjunction with the action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must show that defendant breached a duty distinct from his conlr:1Cluill dulles, not ~;illlply thm he Jailcd to rull111promiSes of future a([s (see, Wl'itz vSlIlitit, 231 AD2d 51 S, 647 NYS2d 236 [2d Dcpt 1996J). Thus, a plaintl rf must present proo I"that (I) the dcfcndalllllladc material rcprcsentations lhat were falsc, (2) the defcndant knew the representations were false and lllade them with the intent to deceivc the plamti ff, (3) the plaintIff justi flably relied on the defendant's representations, and (4) the plaintiff was injured as a rcsult of the defendant's rcpresentatlons (ClulIllld Master Co/]). \' AlulI1illUII1Ltd. Sales, fllc" 4 NY2d 4nJ, SII/1f"(/ al 4()7~ 113-/.J Owners Cm]}. l' Gert7., 123 AD2d SS(), 8S 1,507 NYS2d 4(}4 [lel DCpl 1986J). E[Jch oflhe foregoing clements must he supported by fnctual allcgalions cOlltalnll1g the details COlls[llutillg thl' wrong sunicicnt 10 satIsfy CPLR 3016 (h) (Black l' Citi[[enden. 69 NY2d 665, 668, 511 NYS2d 833 [1()8hj; Priolo COIl1f//lIlls.I'Mel Telecof//II1.'i,Corp.. 248 ,,\02d -1-53.-1-54.669 :-JYS2d J7(j [ld DCPl 1998,1). 1\ calise I)LlCti,'I'] tu recover daillages for I"l'<ludulclllconcealment rcqlllrvs. in addil1ol11n ,lllcg;1l10nS ofscicnler. rell,lllce, and damages. an allcgatiollth<ll the defendant hall ,I duty 10 disclose material information and that]{ failed to do so (High Tides, LLC I' DeMichele. 88 AD~t1 954.957.931 NYS2d 377 [)d Dept 20! 11). Wherc a cause of action is based 011a lllisrcprcsCIll<llioll or fraud. "the circumstances constllutlllg the wrong shall be stated in dewil" [* 5] Amcrican I-Iollle M!gc_ S~rv. Inc. v McGhee Index No.· 10-24967 Pg.5 (CPLR 3016 [b); sec ..Mandarin Trading Ltd. v Wildensteifl, 16 NY3d 173, 178,919 NYS2d 4()S [10] 11)· Further, lhe parol evidence rulc docs not bar a party II-om showing that;1 wntlcn agrecment was ohtalllcd by fl·lludulent inducement; however. in order 10 defeat a sUIllmary judgmenL motloll, such cVHlcncc must be genuine and based on proaL not conclusory assertions (Hogll/l & Co. IISatlll"11Mgt.ll1c., 78 ADld 837, 837-838. 433 NYSld 168 [1" Dcpi 1980]; sec. O,iman .-I.sso('s. I' Palll, 66 NYld 570, 498 NYS2d 344 [1986]). By its submissIOns, the plaintife as a defendant on the counterclaim, established its prima n.lcie entitlement Laj udgmcnt as a matter 0 r law by showing that American, as its predecessor, owcd no duty to the defendant mortgagor to prevent either Its agents or Roslyn McGhee from indLlc\l1g him to enh,::r into the subject mortgage transaction, or the transfer of an ownership ll1lCresL in the property (see, Euba v Elihu, 78 AD3d 761,911 NYS2d 402 [2d Dcpt 2010]; Mathurin v Lost & Found Recol'eIJ!. LLC, 65 AD3d 617, 884 NYS2d 462 [2d Oep12009.l; Beck/Md I' Northeastern ll-ftge. IIII'. Corp., 262 AD2d 436, 692 NYS2d 412 [2d Oept 19991; Wells Fargo BUllk, N.,1. I' Elloyam, 2010 NY Slip Op 32046U, 2010 NY Misc LEXIS 3611 [Sup Ct, Queens County, Aug 3, 2010, Weiss, J.J; see also, Emigrant Mtge. CO./IlC. I' Fitzpatrick, 95 AD3d 1169, 945 NYS2d 697 [2d Dept 2012], revg ill par', 29 Misc3d 746, 906 NYS2d 874]). Further, it is well seWed that a party who signs a document without any valid excuse ror having failed to read It is "conclusively bound" by its terms (Gillman I' Chase Mlmfwttall Bank, 73 NYld 1, 11,537 NYS2d 787 [1988]; see, KMK Safety Consliltillg, LLC 11 Jeffrey M. Browtl Assoc.,fllc., 72 AD3d 650, 897 NYS2d 649 [2d Dept 2010]). To the extent that the defendant mongagor signed an indenture to McGhee, without reviewing it or knowing the contents of it, he risked that the [ransaetlon at issue would be more than a simple refinance (see geJlera/~r, Stephenson I' Terroll-Carrera, 2012 NY Mise LEXJS 2915, 2012 WL 2636004,2012 i\ry Slip Op 31614U [Sup Ct, Suffolk County, ./ulle 5, 2012, Gazzillo, J.]). The loan instruments submitted by thc plaintiff ill support of its motion, which included the l10te and the mortgage, demonstrate that the tCl"lllSof tile same were fully set fiJrLh ,1'1 the loan doculllents The plaintlffalso subl1lil1cd a copy Orille recorded indenture dated FebrualY 15, 2006 nnd sworn 10 before a notary publIC, whereby the defendant mortgagor transferred his interest in [he proPCI1y ns sale Lcnantlo hlillSclr and Roslyn ~vlcGIl('e as joint tenants with fights of survivorship (see, Helll'en l' Gowall, 40 A D3d 583,835 NYS2d 641 [2d Dept 2007])_ ivlorcoVCL thc countcrclaim. which is based upon fraudulent misrepresentations and ti-auL1ukllt concealment. IS deficicnt as failing to meet the heightened pleading requirements of CPI.R 30] () Ih) {see, .Ytein I' Doukas, 08 AIDd 1024.051 NYS2d 173 [2e1Dept 20 [21; High Tides, l.tC I' De/Hie",,!e. SS i\D3d 954, silJm,l, .folies l' 07:.\' Enter., II1c'. 84 AD3d lOn, l)22 NYS2d 811) pd Dcpt 2011]; Morales 1'.·tHS Mtge. Sens., Inc.. 69 /\D3d (l()], 897 NYS2d ]0.1 r2d Dcpt 20!n], c/. Blach I' Chittenden. CJ9 NYld 665. sl/jJm). In the counterclaim. the del'end,11ll l1lort\!a~or h~lSnOl set forth the oales or details of any alleged Illlsrepresentatlons made spccifically hy A~ll;rican· s repres(,lltati\'es or by Roslyn McGhec to him (sec. Momles I' A MS Mtge. Serl'S .. 1;/('.69 .AD3d ()91. supra; U.S. Bank Nat!. AssII. v Fieltls. 2012 NY Mise LEXIS ...()25. 2011 WL j 3647712. 2011l\iY Slip Op 312()..j.U [Sup Ct, Suffolk County. Index No_· 10-32714. Aug. ]4, l(JJ~. Pit1c~ .1.1; Em (ftrtltlt iHtge. Co., file. I' Bli;;;;ard,2011 NY Mise tEXIS 19S .. 10]1 NY Slip 0]1 . L [* 6] AmerlCdll Home Mtgc. Servo Inc. v McGhee Index No. 10-14%7 Pg. CJ :J 1S088U [Sup (1, Richmond County, Apr. 25, 2011, Maltese, J J). In any event, as the 1110t10115 unopposed, the elefendant mortgagor has biled to come 1 !l)l\vard \\I1Lhany evidence substanllatlng his contenllon that Amcrican's agents fraudulently lt1duccd him to executc the subject mortgage and indenture (see, Argent Mtge. Co., LLC \I MelltewlJla, 79 AD3d 1079, Sllj)ru; Chemical Bank l' Bowers, 228 AD2d 407, 643 NYS2d ()53 [2d Dcrt 19%J, see ([/so, Scarsdale Natl. Bank & T1'U~,t II Stein, 151 AD2d 468, 541 NYS2d 257 Co. [2d Dcrt 1939]; B({rcl(lY.~· Ballk of New York, N.A. v Sokol, 128 AD2cl492, 512 NYSld 419 [2e1 DepL 1937]; see gCII('}"{I//I" Willegrad I' New York Ulliv. Merl. 01'.,64 NY2d 851,487 NYS2d 316 [1985J). There is also no cvidence that American, as the original mortgagee, had any relationship with Roslyn McGhee, or partlClpated 111 had kno\vledge ofRosl'y11 McGhee's alleged fraudulent or conduct (sL-'e, Miller Planning COIl). I' Wells, 253 AD2d 859, G78 NYSlcl340 [2e1Dept 10981; Chemic(ll Balik I' BOIt'ers, 228 AD2d 407, supra). LJncJcrthese Clrculllstances, the Court finds that the defendantmorLgagor falled to rebut the pl3111tlffs prima facle showing of its entitlement to summary judgment requested by it (see, Flagstar Balik v Bel1afiore, 94 AD3d 1044, supra; Argellt Mtge. Co., LLC v MClltesUlw, 79 AD3d 1079, supra; see genera!(l,J, Hermitage Ills. Co. TrOllce Nite Club, fIlC., 40 AD3c11 032,834 NYS2d 870 [2d Dept 2007]). The plaintiff, therefore, is aW'arded summary Judgment ill Its favor and against the defendant mortgagor (see, Argem il1tge. Co., LLC I' MentestUw, 79 AD3d 1079, supra: Fed. Home Loan Nltge. Corp. v Karastathis, 237 AD2d 558, supra; see gcneral(y, Zuckerman v City ofNelV York, 49 NY2d 557, 427 NYS2d 595 [1980]). Accordingly, the defendalltmortgagor's <lns\vcr is stricken and the counterchum is dismissed The defendant mortgagor's cross~claJm against Roslyn McGhee, hO\\/cver, is severed and continued (see, CPLR 1212 [0]' II]). The branch of the instant motion w11er8111 plaintiff seeks an order amenclmg the caption the by CXC1S!ng the flctitiQUS dcfr.:ndants named herein as John Doc U] tllrougl1 Johl] Doc t,l] 0, is grillltcd plIrSI.l'lllt to C P LR ] 024. By Its Sllbll11SSlOns, the p lal11tifr cstab Iished the basis for tlllS relief (sec, Flagstar Bank l' Bell{~fiore, 94 AD3d I044, Sllj)ra~ Neighbor/tood HOlls. Sel'l's. N. Y. Citl', Inc. v Melt~er, h7 AD3d 872, 889 NYS2cl627 [lei Dcpt 2()()9]) All fuLure proceecllllgs shall he captioned accordingly. Fly moving papers, the plainurf further csLabllSilcd the dcl~lU1t III ~lJls\Vcrillg on the pmL or Ihe clelCllllallL I-ISBC 8,mK Ncvad,l, N.A (HSBC) since HSBC ncver lIltcrposed an answer 10 the cOtl1plall1t (.I'ce, RP.I\PL ~ 1321, HSBC Bank USA, NA. v Roldan, SO AD3d 56(1, \)14 j\rYS'2d 647 I.ld DCj1L 21111]; Emigrant S([l's. Bank l' Sia, 20ll NY M1SC LEXIS 3377. 2Ul2 WL 3134214. 2(lll NY Sill' Op 31 S54U [Sup CI, SulTon, ('ounty, July 11, 2fJ12, Martin, lj). Accordingly. the deJ~llllt (ll-HSBC IS fl:'\cd ami deICrl11111ed Slllce the l'Jalllurrhas heen awardccl sUnlmaryjudgll1cllt ,l'-'"II11S1 dcfcnJ,lIll nJort'-'.:.1>,:or, 111(' clllcll1as cstabiJsheci a dcfault III ;mswering or appclIring by HSBC 11;('plall1tiJl IS (~Iltltkd LOa~ (;-t'dcr appointing a rcferee to compute amounts due lInder [h(; suhJcct 110tCdl1d Illortgage (seC', RPA.PL ~ 1321; Oell'en Fed. BaHk FSB J' Mme/', IS f\D3d 527. 794 NYS2d (151)12d DCp120051: Vt. Ferl. Bank l' Chase, 126 ADld lOJ4, ()41 )\i'y'S2d 440 IJd Dcp! 1()()(I)~ Balik olE.. Isia, Ltd. J' ,)'l1Iith, 20] ,,\D2d 522, ()fJ7 N'lS2d 431 [2el Dcpt ] ()94]). Its [* 7] Home i'Yftge. Scn'. Inc. v McC;hec Index No 1(J-2496 7 Pg, 7 American The pLlintiJrs request for the costs of this motion is denIed without prejudICe. ICClyeto ol'thc Judgmellt. renew UPl))l proper dOClllncntatioll lor costs ~Itthe lime oi'submissioll Accordmgly, thiS motIon by The plall1tllf is detellllincd as indicated ahove. The proposed ut'ckr appointIng a referee to compute pursuant to RPAPL ~ 1321 has been SIgned SImultaneously herewith as tllodllied by the Court " D'llc~jJ~1.'[j{ bet" /) I.) - --.10 ,t-li / JV L .. ,I ~~~j Hall DENISE F. MOLlA, J .S.C FINAL lHSPOSITlON X NON-FINAL DlSI'OSITION

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.