Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Quinche

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Quinche 2016 NY Slip Op 32657(U) December 20, 2016 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 2009-04896 Judge: Jeffrey Arlen Spinner Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] INDEX No. 2009-04896 SUPREME COURT : STA TE OF NEW YORK I.A.S. PART XXI : SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. JEFFREY ARLEN SPINNER Justice of the Supreme Court -- ----------~---- ------~---- ---~------------------x DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I INC. TRUST 2006-HE3 Plaintiff ORDER AND JUDGMENT Motion Sequence: 004-MD CASEDISP December 23, 20 l 5 Original Return Date: Motion Sequence: 005-XMG CASEDTSP Original Return Date: February 3, 2016 Premises -against- RUTH QUINCHE, MANUEL TENECORA, MILTON BUENO and NUVE BUENO 48 Sundial Lane Bellport, Town of Brookhaven, New York 0200-900.00-0 1.00- 103.000 Defendants -- ----- ----------------------------- -·------ · ~ ------x Plaintiff has a p p l ied to th i s Court (Seq . 004) for an Order vacating the dismissal of this matter and restoring same to the Court ' s active ca l endar . Defendant RUTH QUINCHE has , in opposition , cross-moved (Seq . 005) for an Ord e r, inter alia , directing cancellation and discharge of ~he mortga ge of record . Though afforded more than ample time to do so , Plaintiff has failed to interpose any r e sponsive or opposing papers to Defendant ' s cross-motion . Plaintiff , through its predecessor counsel Steven J . Ba um P . C. , commenced this action claiming foreclosure of a mortgage da t ed J a nuary 1 3 , 2006 in the orig i nal amount of$ 127 , 623 . 60 . Said mortgage was given to secure an Adjustable Rate No t e of the same date and was recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County on January 23 , 2006 in Liber 21219 of Mortgages , Page 405 . Plaintiff acquired the same by Assignment dated September 16 , 2008 which was recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County on Se ptember 30 , 2008 in Liber 21755 of Mortgages , Page 666 . Said Mortgage constitutes a first lien upon residential real p rope r ty known as 48 Sundia l Lane , Bellport , Town of Brookhaven , New York . • [* 2] Tl1l' within action was cumrnc>nced on F'ebnwry JO, '.;009 inasmuch as i;:. was dlleged that Detendant RUTH QUlNCH~ had defaultPd on the instdJlmf'nl which came d-ie on May 1, 2008 . 'J'hPreafter cllld on [lr•r:•"mh<"t 2H, ;:>r)l1 , thL' L;.iw firrn of Gross Polowy & Orlans Wi'lS substitut~r:l d:> counsE-!.I for PJaintiff. Subsequently clnd on ~ruJy 31 , 20i5 , the fjrm of Kozi:>ny Mccubbin & Kat.z was substituted as counsel for PlainLi ff. 011 April 2·{, 2009, Plaintiff moved for the appojntm~nt of [l Referve , whi,-h Wi'l.s gr,1nt0d. The rcaLLet c:inci in -~ompl iance wi~ h CPI.R § 340?. , n1c1ndatory fo?~c;.!.osu.re sett:ement conf(rencf>.c::; wE>r"-' <.~ 1nve11c-d on no 1•2\:>s Lh.m t1L'1l !>~parat:I? ocrnsions . Fo ... JowJnq Uw entry of l\dndnis~tul iv" 0Lde::J At>':148/10 and an inordinaLcJy JengLhy period in whjch th(:f1·· wr::;: no <'lctivjty on the ma tter , the Courr issued an ord(.,r wturh scheou1eJ ;1 con f.erencE> for September 19 , 2012 . A rep re sen tati ve from 1 J,c- off i~e of Plaintiff ' s counsel appeared t.hereaL , t.he matter was addrP.sse•d, 1 he <:curt di re rted resumptio11 cf prosecution wj tnir. s j x Ly days e l.'3e tltc~ matter wo uld be subject to dismissal. Thereafter and though not required to do so , Lhe Court ginnled an )dditional period of time in whi1 ·r1 10 resume rrosen,,;t.i.on .in dc(erenr:c-> to r.he HUD Mor;::itorillm (HUD !lo . l? - J67 cla ~ l''d October 30 , 201/) which was jssued fo]lovdng llunicaiw Sandy . Upon the failure of Plaintlff to resume prcsec:utjnn , the Court issued an 01det dated F'ebrn<'.lt:'Y 26, /013 which d.ismissed th~ Court to Plaint.ift ' s oction. The <hde.r was mailed on nwt dr-He by the then counsPJ of record and to all partiC's . Plaintiff now applies , by Notice of M oti.on dated November J<) , 201') for an Orcl<>r vacat j ng t.he dismj ssal and re!> tor in~1 the mi'li-u:~r t o the Cou1t 's ~a·~ndilr . This applicdt1on was filed ~ome ~2 months and 24 days aft~r the dismissal order wc.1s grcinted . ln its app.LicdtioL , ?.l;-dntiH jnvokes the c uthority contained within CPLR ~ 50l~J{d) (i) , i i:>St"'rr i119 1 hcH jr. has both a rcasonC1b1o f!Xcuse:· ioi: i.t!> defaul. ancl a :neJ. it <•r- Lous cause of a<.:t ion against Defendant RlJTH QUlNCHE . The Court is µrcpdred , at this junc~urc , to review Plaintiff ' s applicat1on in roto and , in partjr:ular, the asserted reasonableness of its P. xrus<• for not mnkin9 a timely applicAtion. 'i'hE> Affirmation of Corey Robson Esq. datc-d Novembnr lg , 201 5 .=is~ei-t.; v.~Jbd t . im , in f.>,::iraq~aph 8 thereof , as loll<>ws "The I'laintitI Ile.JS d 1~n:'e>nal>J.e. <.c">.-.:cr;se for its default . The Plaintiff ' .·; at.torney v/d~ .••11bsr.:it11ted as dtt:>rney of n-~rord in ,.711ly ?.01!1. l'laintifl [sir] prior Jtt:C'rncy pi:oce12dt:>d vtith the .J11dgm~n1 of F'o1ecJosure and SaJP but same WdS ri1=>nicd as moot rts the matter had yet to be restored. Plajnt.U:t':: prior at. torney i,.1as late in tiling the .Judgment of Foreclosurt:' and s,1 le . However , now I.he Plaintiff" has tl1P .required doc-ume>nLs and propc·i ,, ff idavi U; 1.0 proceed with tt1e ,.Judgment of Foree Zosu re and Sa le j n thJ .r: mcJ l U•J . Tllerefol.~ ~-1 i th a ce:asonable excuse and mer j tori 011s <.'CJllS<-' of act.ion , the dismissal should }Je vacated and thcl mnlt.er r ·~s l.<)12d 1.0 thc:• active ··;ile11da1." This affirmed st.at'°ment in an<i of it.sr.di Ls i:l clear admi::>sLon thaL for at leC'lst the prE>cAdinq • r:irly lwu !>ins rnontt s , Plajn~.ift has t1ppare111 ly not been in d posiUnn to proceed nor rlJ d it deem is nece>::>sary or aavisab 1 e to ask the court l or dn exLension of time in whirh lo do so. [* 3] /\J Lhough Plaint_iff ' s moving papers do not articulate iust wht'lt t h~ " . .. required documents and proper affidavits . . . " may he, ;;ippendGd as Exhlbi t F' Lo the motion papers j s a n Aff i rmac i on of one Dennis ,Jos~ Esq . which Js dated April ?J , 20l4 and which putports to be mad~ Jn compl1ance with A0548/10 and its progeny. Affordinq PJdinrjff ~he benPii t of ev~ry reasonable lnfeLencc and presuming Lha t this J::xili nj • is inlendPd to stand as the n~cessary document , the date that it b~~ts is somP one ye a r , s@ven months and twenty ninP days prior to the date of 1·h1::' motjon that is now before the Court . No excuse or r:xoJanarj,m has bPen advanced as to the lapse of time between the date of that· Aftirmation and the date o i the motion . In assessing the reasondbl~ness of the excuse proffered , the Court can cvns.i der th0 J r~ngth ot r i.me t ha I. hds Pl apsed betw'-'Pn the ren<.J.j l_j on of t.he 01cler at issue dnct the appl1ca1 ion 1 o Vi:lCi)le (in t h is case-' , ;:ilmos~ n nicnt:hs) , Dominque?. v . Carioscia 1 AD 1d JQ6 (7 I Dt'?[.,L. 2003) . Ind<=>ed , it is i nstruct i ve to not.e tha• in the matt(>r oj Dominqui:-;;; v . Cai inscja I AD Jd 396 (2'· ' Dept . 2003) , rhe Appellate f"ii visio11 £0und that. there was no reasonable exruse a~vanccd for d d~lay ot sixtPn~ mon rhs. Moreover, in the mat. t er of Ve L i.sca v . Cou i:tesy Traosporta ti on LY.t..,_ r, AD 3d 646 ( 2" 1 Dept . 2004) , the CourL determined '"hat t·h~re was no reasoMtble excus<-> tor a delay oi six months in seeking relief . ~n c1rldi1: i0n to UH" foregoing , mandat<~ t h~ provisions of CPLR § r>OlS(a) (l) made wit.h1n o:-ic> yeat followinq r.hat su<.:h an application he servJc0 ot Lhe ordRr or judgment ar i~sue . Here , the Order of ~nd served by lhP Court on Fehruary 26 , ?OJ3 , one year pPriod in which rPlief could be $OUqht . Plaintiff ' s appl i cation was elated November 19 , /OJ5 , which is 12 months and .~t! days thereaJ ter . Hence , the app l i.cution i.s 1mtimPly on its frice and no explana~ion hns b0.Pn advanced by Plaintiff to dismissdl was rc>ndered LhPreby tr1ggering the r;C:f'(JUllt f"OI thj $ paSSdqe Of tint~. f'l.:iint i.tt ' s c-ounsel has td.i.led to rldvonct: any reasonc.1bl<? or deldil1.:'rl Px1:11~<"' for it!> delay in r.hi.s matter . AJrnosL t.hirty three months between the date of the Order of Dismiss<ll anrl the applicarlon to v.:wa.te it . The excuse advanced by Plaint.i ff j s both vaquc and wholly devoid of speci f icity . ~n excuse which js amorphous is not ~1aps0ri i:eason<lble , . >us t· a i ne<t . • Dug an v . BeVk UO AD 2d 746 (3'' 1 Dept. 1991) and cannot bP laJ0nt.nericctlly , the Court notes t.ha1. were i t. t:o 9rdnl Plajii'"ifi ' ::; at this lat.e date, Defendant ~ould be sAverPly pr~judiced by PJ;-li iitil'f ' s unexp1ained .:ir.d inordinate delay . <lppli~atj~>n ln vi0w of Lhe Ja.ck of the advanc.:ment of any reasonable excuse tor the delay , as mandated by CP~R § 50l5{a) (1) , t"he Court. need noL consjdpr whether or not che PJaintjff ' s claims are mericorious . Hence, Plaintiff ' s application must be denied . [* 4] The Court next turns its attention to Defendant ' s unup~Josed application , which seeks relief of both great substa:ice rtnrl sLqnif]canc<? . DP11-'lldanl a.rques, witho ut any opposi.tioll , that the si.x ye<H DtdlutP ot I.i.m· tarjon~ a.s set forth in CPLR § 213 (4) has run ; 1 s course , t h0r~oy bd1r1 og any aC'tion by Plaj nt· if f insofar as i L c-oncerns enforc-ement· «ii th<' and t.!1e more.gage. not:P The ptovjsions 0f C"t'LR § 213{4) ire dS tnJJows: "The fol.Jowinq acrjons must.[;,-:. commenced within si.': yedrs: . . . (-1) an action upon a bond or note, the paynk'nt of v1hicl' js sec1ir2d by .-1 mortqaqe upon real pr:opor.ty 1 t>.L" upon n band or note 3w-f mo1 t:gage so secured, or upon a mortgagP of real pro{lei·ty 1 or any inl:t"Lt=?st th~re>in ; ". ln applyino the clear languag<"' of the f')regoinn r.he J imitations period to the mat1 <>t slal ut e , ~xµlr0d el1her on May 1, 2014 tha::. is sub (sJx years fcom the claimed j11,U<·~ dale of dC'fault) <'r February 10 , ~01:, (six years f1om the date" of the comme11cement of the within ('\ct.ion) . Ac<·ord]ng to well settled law , tlw <>iatut...e 0£ limitations begins to run upon acceleration oi the 1inck•rJyinq debt , Federal Nationa.l Mortga.qc Ass'n v. Mebane ?.OR AD 2d 89~? ([" D..:pi.. 199'1) . Though not made c:-l~ar to thjs Court , iL is beyond dispu t r th~t acceleration could not have thE' dC'!re upon whi ch the action wc'l.s commenced . oc~urrPd l~t.er than t.hu~ requests thr.lt .:.11 dccorcl.-rnce with RPAPL § 15 1)l(4) ~h.-:i~ l Ii(:> muJ Lgage at: issue herein be cdt\Ct:' 1 .!.dd and discha rqc>rl o t rei:::or·"l inasmu ch .is tl•e applicable ~tat.lit~' of limitar1ons h;=is expjied . 'l'hdt: statute reads, Jn pertinent part , as follows : Deft·nda11t: "4 . Whe rt~ the period a 11 ()W\Jcl by the appJ icable stat u L<" nf Umjtatjons (or the ..::ommenceme11L ot an action t.o [oreclos'=" a mortyaqe ... has expjred, any pt>rson !tavjnq an €'state 01 int e1:est j n t 11 . .~ real propeL ty subject to such encumL>ranc.:(' ma} majntaJn an actjon ... l.....-1 sr:~c11n-" Ui.-· canc-c.,J 1at ion .1nd ii~-"charge of record of .<:uch enc11mhra11c-e , dncf to ad_judqt=tht' t:>State oi· interest oL the plaintiff in such n>a) property to be free therefrom ... Tn any action brought 1mdei- this section it shall b~ immat..erial wh<'>t.h€.'r the, d0ht upon which the mart.gage or J ien wa.<i hased ha.<:, or ha:• not, i:,1een p,1 id . . . '' Ir• t!w ni.Htr->r Lliat. .Ls p~esently hef:c,rr-• 1 he CourL , thPre is more thdn amplF-< d<.imissihJI? proof to d<.-monsrrate that. Lhe m0rtq<lqe rleht h<1d l'*""'" t1<~ce l t• 1 ri1· ed ,111d that t ht? ~cceiera.tion had not been n"vok0d; that PlaJ.nt.ilE hc1rl tjmC?Jy commenced d suit cl.dming .toreclosu1E: of the mor:.q;iq<c> ; thi3\ the action w;:is dismissed and was netth·~l i.eviVf!d n<·r restoi;r::d within the statutory period p.cencilbed by CPLR ~ 2iJ('1) . In add1t.i.on, there has been n0 claim Lhat: the mortgagee and not oe:-:r.dcH\L i:;; in possession of the property . Jn shott , DefendanL h..is fulJy ::idtis1.if'>ci all of the mand<Jt°('S cont.diner! withjn RPAPL ~ 1 1?01 (t,), rh11s t"'nti.tling ht•r to thE~ affirmritjve reli<"f gought in thtl c ~:os~-morion. [* 5] 111 dddition l:"o i:he fOr~going dfld undc:>r lht'! principle•:> OJ' ldW Lhal cH0 .ip1• ! i .·.:ib J f'· to dn a1:t ion L o forecl OSf.! a mortqage (especiA l Ly 1 nasmu.-·h «ls I.lie bf'Jth the Adjustable Rat.0 No1·e and r.hc Mortgage expressly r0rmir. rPcove1:y of counsel fees) , ~efendant. is enc.i.t led to .J.f',cnvery o( 1<~c1.c;on<"tbJe attorney ' s fees and cos1.s for her ~xrwncUtur0!'i a!'> .. hf'::y r<-'la1f~ to the wiLhin mdtU.n . Ba!'ied upon t:he Affirmation of FRED m. St:l/ll'JAPT:I. F.:SQ ., Defendant js awarded the t:ot;1l sum of S ? ,~)04.00, c011sisting of rP<lsonable n .. t.o:::-ney'$ ffH•5 of$ 2 , 4r)ci.O(J i:lnd r)u• of f.llWktt disbui:semenls of$ 54.00 . Plaintiff s~iall c..llsu n>jmb1:rse De fend.:inL tor any and aJJ .tees l tv ied by the ClE>r k of Suf toll: C'oun t y that are incident to discha1ge oJ 1he mo r rgdgc of recorc! . Said fees and r;o!>Ls shall be paid by Pli:!int.itf to dPfr-~ndan1· ' s r·ouns e J '.YLthj11 1· 1i it I y rlays oi r.he di:I te oi. se rvic:e of .:i cnpy of this Orctet dlld JudgmF>nl. Tt l!>, therefore , ORDER8n that the application by Plaintiff (Seq . 004)shall rlnrl i.t is furthf'>J: b~ and ltw sam<> i~; her.eby deniE."d :in its <>11t.i1ety ; nPf)E.REfl tha L the cross b1~ dnd j:: h1:.:n:by granrc;d in -appli•~nu i.ts ~nt on by D"' fendant {:>t-"q. 00'1) i r0ty ; anrl lt is furl hr~1 sh.=iJ l t.JHDP.REO thcJ L th-= mo1lgaq~ ddted J.=tnuary 13 , of$ L"/,f,~~-~ . 60, ?OOfi, in the amount given by RlJTH QUINCll::: nnto NEW CENT'JFY MURTGl\GE COHPORAT10N and recorded w)th the CJe.rk of Suffolk County on January ~·3 , :-iorH.i ir. Lilwr ?1219 l ) f MortgagE->~ ar: Page~ 405 , c'.'IS may have be(2n d:'ls i·1m·d o( tQcoz:d, shal 1 b(: rind the same is herPby ('an..::el led, i-!l111ullPd , voiclNl, dlschargea i1nd is unenf<.)rCedb]P rll1d oi no for.cf.) and elfe,·1 ; and ir is further ORDERED that: the C:}~rk of Suffo] k Cou nty , upon pclymen•_ ot ;:Ile j f any , shall cause the a fur<'!said mortgage to bf' prop0r 1<>"'s , canc0lle<l and discharged of record ; and i i is further ORDER~D <>rdt•l of S ~hat within thi=ty days of strvi~e of a ~opy o f chis .rnrl dudqmcnt with Not.ice o f Entry , Plaint.iff shall remit th•: sum 2 , ~J04 .00, together with any and .:iJ1 f.<:>f~S th.11 1ndy bP imposed by th~.. · 1c> r k of Suffolk CoG.nt:y in ef tcc1.i.nci the> <iischa.rc1c• '> f 1hC! Jn\lr!qfl<.jt' herein ; and it is rurl.ner ORDEPED ·hat dny relief not specifically granteri and the:> same is herF>by denied . This r·o11rt . Ui'lte1i: sh~ll !..11•C<=?mber Ccmtral record n i !1Pr~in shall bP c.:onstitute t.hP. Decision , ,Juctgrnenl and Order ot this ,!O , 20J ! [sj Lp , New Yoric

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.