JP Morgan Chase Bank v Hanspal

[*1] JP Morgan Chase Bank v Hanspal 2012 NY Slip Op 51418(U) Decided on August 1, 2012 District Court Of Nassau County, First District Fairgrieve, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on August 1, 2012
District Court of Nassau County, First District

JP Morgan Chase Bank, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, Petitioner(s)

against

Guramrit Hanspal a/k/a GURAMRIT S. HANSPAL, JEAN CHALES, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, Respondent(s)



LT-003075-10



Knuckles, Komosinski & Elliott, LLP, Attorneys for Petitioner, 565 Taxter Road, Suite 590, Elmsford, New York 10523, 914-345-3020; William D. Friedman, Esq., Attorney for Respondent, 62 Nichols Court, Suite 204, Hempstead, New York 11550, 516-538-5462.

Scott Fairgrieve, J.

The following named papers numbered 1 to 3

submitted on this Motion

on July 26, 2012

papers numbered

Notice of Motion and Supporting Documents1Order to Show Cause and Supporting Documents

Opposition to Motion2

Reply Papers to Motion3

The Petitioner, JP Morgan Chase Bank, moves for a new Judgment of Possession and a Warrant of Eviction issued forthwith. Respondents, Guramrit Hanspal and Jean Chales oppose the motion. Petitioner filed a reply.

This holdover proceeding arose after Petitioner was a successful bidder after a foreclosure of a mortgage loan. The premises which was sold to Petitioner is located at 2468 Kenmore Street, East Meadow, New York 11554. Respondents were occupants of said premises and they failed to turn over possession of same to Petitioner. Petitioner was than forced to commence an eviction action. On January 11, 2011, the court issued a decision granting a Judgment and a Warrant of Possession in favor of [*2]the Petitioner. A year has elapsed since the Judgment and a Warrant of Eviction was obtained and the Petitioner is now seeking a new Warrant of Eviction.

Petitioner contends that the delay in executing the warrant was due to the Petitioner taking the necessary measures to ensure it was in full compliance with Administrative Orders AO/548/10 and AO/431/11. To comply with these Administrative orders, Petitioner contends it had to conduct a thorough review of the file and determine the instant action was free of any insufficiencies such as a deficient notarizations and "robosigning" of supporting documents.

Respondents contend that this Court has no jurisdiction to issue a new warrant after one year from the entry of the judgment of possession and the issuance of the warrant without a justifiable excuse. Respondents also contend that it would be prejudicial towards them if a new warrant is issued since they have remained in the apartment for over a year.

The Court does not agree with the Respondent. Respondents argument that a new warrant may not be issued absent a showing of a justifiable excuse by Petitioner is devoid of merit. As long as the warrant remains unexecuted, the court has the power to promulgate, effectuate, or terminate any steps in the proceedings which might be necessary. See Rasch, New York Law of Landlord and Tenant and Summary Proceedings, Fourth Edition §46:7.

Further, even if Respondents claim that Petitioner must have a justifiable excuse were true, Petitioner has demonstrated a valid excuse as to why the execution of the warrant was delayed for over a year. Petitioner had to take the necessary measures to ensure it complied with Administrative Orders AO/548/10 and AO/431/11. Petitioner had to ensure the matter was free of "Robosigning", which had become an epidemic in mortgage foreclosure actions at the time.

Respondent's contentions that the issuance of a new warrant would be prejudicial towards them is incorrect. In fact, Respondents have benefitted from the delay since they were able to continue to occupy the premises for over a year without having to pay fair use and occupancy fees, taxes, or insurance.

Petitioner may submit a new warrant for this Court's signature.

So Ordered:

/s/ Hon. Scott Fairgrieve

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Dated:August 1, 2012