Central Mtge. Co. v Torres

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Central Mtge. Co. v Torres 2017 NY Slip Op 31083(U) May 10, 2017 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 21923/2010 Judge: Howard H. Heckman 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] Short 1-orm Ord~r SUPREME COURT- STATE OF NEW YORK !AS PART 18 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. HOWARD H. HECKMAN, JR., J.S.C. ----------------------------------------------------------------)( CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY, Plaintiff: -againstJESUS TORRES, MARIA TORRES, Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------)( INDEX NO.: 21923/2010 MOTION DATE: 01/3112017 MOTION SEQ. NO.: 004 MG PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY: BERKMAN, HENOCH, PETERSON, PEDDY & FENCHEL. P.C. 100 GARDEN CITY PLAZA GARDEN CITY, NY 11530 DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY: CABANILLAS & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 120 BLOOMINGDALE RD., STE. 400 WHITE PLAJNS. NY 10605 lJ pon the following papers numhercd JJ.g_read on this motion I - 20 : Notice of Motion_: 0lotice of Cross Motion and supporting pupcrs_ : Answeri ng Affidavits and supporting papcrs2 l-39 : Replying Affidavits and supporting papers 40-61 Other_ : (a nd after heari ng co unsel in suppon and opposed to the motion) it is, ORDERED that this motion by plaintiff seeking an order pursuant to CPLR Section 2221 granting leave tO renew plaintiff's prior motion and the Order (Gazzillo, J.) thereon dated October 21, 2014, denying plaintiffs summary judgment motion and for the appointment of a referee to compute the sums due and owing to the plaintiff in this mortgage foreclosure action is granted; and it is further ORDERED that upon renewal, plaintiffs motion for an order: 1) granting sununary judgment striking the answer of Jesus Torres; 2) substituting "Harvey Torres" as a named party defendant in place and stead of a defendant designated as "John Doe # l" and discontinuing this action against defendants designated as "John Doe #2" through "John Doe #12"; 3) deeming all defendants in default; 4) amending the caption; and 5) appointing a referee to compute the sums due and owing to the plaintiff in this mortgage foreclosure action is granted; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of th.is order amending the caption upon the Calendar Clerk of the Court; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this order with notice of entry upon all parties who have appeared and not waived fwther notice pursuant to CPLR 2J03(b)(l).(2) or (3) within thirty days of the date of this order and to promptly file the affidavits of service with the Clerk of the Court. Plaintiff's action seeks to foreclose a mortgage in the original sum of $299 ,000 executed by defendants Jose Torres and Maria Torres on December 29, 2006 in favor of Wilmington Finance, Inc. On the same date defendant Jose Torres also executed a promissory note promising to re-pay [* 2] th\." 1.."11tirl' anhn1nt ortlK' indl.."hll'dnl.."ss to th1.: 111oitgug1.." kndcr. On Oc1nbl'r 17. 2008 th\." <kli.:11dants t:'\1.:c111ed a loan 1110Jification agreement to form a singk lien in the sum orto $]09.4 18.(lO. 13~ assig111111.:nt dated Octob\.!r I. 2008. the mortgage was assigned to the plaintiff. Thi." ddl:ndanls han.: 1;1ikd lo make any mortgage pa:_v mcnts sine\." October I. 2009. By Order ((jazillo . .J.) <lated October 21 . 201-1 plai nl itr s lllotion t<.H· an order granting summary j udgmcnt and appoint i11g a r1.."li..T1.:l' 10 t:otnputl.." the sunts due.: and 0\\ inµ 10 tht: pl:ii111i IT aml dc.:li.:ndant"s c.:mss-mot io11 to dismiss tlK' c11111p lai11t \\Crt: denied. Plaintiff~-.. 111oti,m se1.:b an order granting lc:ne to n.:ne\\ its prior motion and the On.kr dc11) ing il. and upon rcnnvaL granting summary judgment. Plai 111 i ff argues that its 11101 i<>ll lo rt:111.:w is based upon l'\'id1.:ntiary facts supplementing its prior submission and that thl.."rl' is rcasonabk j ustification for l~1ilur1.: to pn:sent an additional affidavit since the kndl!r reasonably hdil',·cd its prior c\ idl.."ntiary suhlllissions \\en.: su ·1icient to prove plaintiff had the requisite standing to maintain this ac.:t ion. Plai11tiff 11llll.'s that an assigncc·s anidaYil was previously submilled whid1 addrl.."sscd the issm: or the phvs ica l delivery llr the promissory note but was never t:ited by the court prior lll rc11dcri11g the ddc.:nninatio11 tknying its motion. The plaintiff further contends tlwt the supplemental affalavit provides 1h1.: court'" ith the additional factual information regarding the Liming or the plaintiffs acquisition or the IH)I\." . thcn:by confirming the plaintifrs standing to commcncl.' this action. lhe plaintiff contends that tlw original note was physically deli\c.:red. surrcndcrl:d and ClHl\' l.."~cd to thi.: plai11 tiffo1 1JulyJ.2007 und that lh<..: plaillliffha<l actual ph)sit:ul pl)SSessillll orlhe note prior Ill tlw com111c11<.:em1.:nt or this action. In opposition. the dell.:ndant submits an attorney"s arlirmation und claims that the plaintif"rs 1lllllion 111ust hl' denied since plaintiff J'aikd to meet the statutory requirements f(1r a motilln lo renev\ pursua111 to CPI ,R 2221. 1kll:11dan1 argues that the plaintiff has faikd to 1.:stahlish ;111y nl.'\\ 1:11.:ts that \\ere nol o!h.:rcd on the prior motion that would change the prior determination of thl..' <.:<Hirt. and has not put forth a l"l'asonabk justilication for its failure to present such focts on the prior motion. lkknda111 argues that even il't.h is court were to consider the supplemental af!iduvit. the plaintiff has foikd lo providejustilication as lo why the information was not indudt:d in its prior affidavit. Ikl(.·ndant also claims that the proor suhmitted by the plaintiff in support or this motion foils 10 establi sh that th\." plaintiff has standing. ('Pl.R Section 222 I (e) provides: (c) I\ motion for h:a\'I.." lo renew: I. shall he idcnti lied as such 2. shall he hased upon llC\\ focts not nffcred on the prior motion that \\lHild changl.· the prior determination or shall th.:rno11strate that there has been a change in the law that would change.: the prior dctt.::rmination; J. shall contain rcasonablejustilication for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion. (iencrall! ··a motion rm ka\\.' lo renew is intended to hring to the court·s allcntio11 ne'' or ildditional focts "hich \\ere in c\ iste11ce at the time th1.: original motion \\·as made. but unlrntmn lo -2- [* 3] the mm ant"· (I "itu 1•. : l!s10111 ,l..,'ig11llli11g. '.l08 /\J)2d 582. 582. 76-1 YS2d 86-1 ('.:! "1 Ikpl.. 200.~ )). I l<l\\C\\.T. the requirc111c11t 1lwt a motion for kuVl' to rcncv. be based upon ncw or ildditional l ~1cts unknown to thc rrnm.ull at lhc 1i111e or Lile original motion is a lkxihk one and the court. in it s di:-LTl'tion. ma~ a lst) grant rc11e\\ t1I. in Lht: interest of justice. uron fot:ts "hid1 \\\.Tl! known to LllL· llHl\ aill at the time the original motion \\as made (CitiMortgage. /11c. v. /~·spinal. 136 t\1>3d 857. 26 ~ YS.ld 5·l 1 (2 ~" l)epl.. :rn 16): 'f'ish11w11 ( '011str11ction ('Olp. o(Ne1r )'ork 1•. ( 'it.1 · of Nell' l"ork. 280 \l>::!d 37-L .l76. 720 NYS2d 487 ( 1'1 lkpl.. 200 1); ,'·>'tock 1•. o.,·rrwuler. 233 t\D2d 816. (,50 NYS2d 1 -11<> n"' Ik rt.. I9% ): I 'oyser 1· fl'u/dlw11111. /11c.. 225 D2d 760. 6-10 . YS2d 179 e"tt Dept.. 19% J: Scillscio 1· Xel'im. 1:rn AD2d (>·~ 9. 51: YS2d 578 (2 11" Dept.. 1987)). In thi s casc. plain ti ff lws provided a reasonable ex<.: use l'o r its failure to submit a suppknw1tal :1nida\ it li·om the mortgage knder·s ,·ice president (nov' submitted in support o r this rcnl'wal mntion) on Lhc basis Lhat its n.:liance upon th1.; previously submitted affidavi t rn.,m the mort gage knde1··o,; assistant ,·ice president CSwayi'.c affidavit) dated .lune 2-L : w13 was reasonahk. since that alfolavit (admissible as evidc111.:c salisl)'ing the business records exception lo lhe hearsay rukl pro\ idcd SUlfo.:ient proor Of lhl' pbinti fj"' S Sta11ding based Up011 thL' arfiant ' s rcpreSl.'ll latil)!l in paraµraph JO stating that: ··Plai111 iffhas ph~sical posst:ssion or the ote. havinµ taken ph)sical dd i ,er~ of' the n~He from Wilmi ngton Finance Inc. prior to the commencement or this action." l'he lanil lo. J.) made no mention this affidavit in thl· decision denying that Oc1nher 2 1. 201-1 On.kr (C stamling. had been established. Moreover. even were thi s court to accept the ckl~n<lant's conll'ntion thut thL· Ii.tels contained in the supplemental alli<lavit were known to the plaintiff at the time the original motion was made (yet not provided in the Swa) i'C arlidavit). the inlL'rests ofjustiCL' arc heo,;t sn\cd hy µrnnting rctll'\\al. in ,·ie" of the Ii.tels underlying this l(ireclosure action \\hich arc not co11lL'SlL·d b: LIK' dcli.:mbnt. and which shO\\ that ddcndant has hrem:hcd the kmlinµ agrec111cn1 hy Ii.ti ling to make any mortgagl'. payments for the pa~t eight and nne-half yl'ars. or In this case. the plaintiff has submitted sufficient documentary cvi<lcnn: to prove it s standing lo prns<.:cule this actinn hy of"li:ring thl' evickntiary facts necessary rl'gurding. the nwrtgagL' co111pa n) ·s j)l\SSl'SSiOn or the duly indorSL'd in blank prollliSsory lllltl' prior to Cl\llllllencelnl'llt lhl'. li.irel.·lo-;url.' acti,in. f' hL· evitkncc. in thl' l(1m1 ol'an ~tffida\· it from the plaintilrs 'ice presi(k111. ,,!Jich :-.atio,;liL'S thl..'. husinL'ss records exeL'ption h1 the hearsay ruk. together with copies of Lhl' doc umentar~ proor cstahlishL·s 1hc rL'k\'ant fo<.:ts that the promissory note signed by Jesus TorrL's. tog1..·ther with a11 allongl· indorsed in blank and signed by a designated signer or thl'. original mortgage knder. \\ 'il111i11gton Finance Inc .. \\as physical}) ddivered lo the plaintiff on July 1. 2007 and "''as i11 pla intil'rs continuous possession since that time and at tht: comml'ncement or this action. Such · l'\'idencc proves that the plaintiff has standing to maintain this action (S('l' Aurora /,oc111 Sal'ic ·e., 1 l c1 .1·/or. 25NY ';d155. 12 NYS1 d 61 2 (20 15); f!Ve//,· Fargo /Jank'" , Iii. 122 /\1)1J 72<>- 995 NYS2d ·n ~ (:1'" 1 Ikpt.. 20 1-1 ): J·,'111igrc1111 /Junk 1·. /,uri::::u. 129 /\DJd 94. 1) YS:ld 129 (2'"1 Dept.. 20 15 ): II l'f/, l·urgo /Ji111k. \ .. J. I'. l'urkcr. 125 /\l).ld 848. 5 1 YSJd I 30 (2'"1 Dept.. 20 15 ): l 1. S. /Ju11/... I\'.. I. 1·. <iuy. 12) /\ l).ld 845. 5 ' YS1d 116 (2"'· Dept.. 2015)) and contrar~ to thl' <ldi.:ndant·s d aim. there is no rcquirl'llh.:nl that any addi1ional fa<.:Lual details be providi.:J surroundi ng the dl'liwry ol' thc nolL'. g. i\\~n lhe unqualilied wsti1110ny ul'the morlgnge enmpuny·s n.:pr~sl'. 1llati\ ·e that the plaintiff po..,s~·..,sL·d ihl'. rndorsed in hlank note <.:ontinuously si nce .Jul~ I. 2007 \\'hich \\U S prior L o :ommcnci.:ment of this action on June I 0. 20 I 0 (sec Jl'.\lorgu11 C'/w\·e /Jank. N.. 1. '" lf'c:i11her).!<'r . 1 -1 ~ ,\l) ;d C 1. . >-1. 17 IYS'.\d 286 (2'" 1 lkpt.. 201(,): One West /Jank. F\H ' " 11/hunesc•. 139 /\ l)Jd 8.1 1. 30 YSJd 137 (2 1111 Jkpt.. 7.016): lf'e/ls Forgo Hunk. NA . v. (iu//agher. 137 /\D3d 898. 28 NYSld 8-1 1 t :1" I kpt.. ~O I (l): ll'dls Fur,i:,o /Ju11k. \ '.. I. '" ./o.' "f''1. U7 AD.kl 8W>. 2(, YSJd 58] (2"J Dept.. or ., . . .) - [* 4] 20 l(i): Citi.\lortguge. Inc.'" J:/cin. 1-10 /\D3<l 913. 33 NYS3<l 432 (2°<.t Dcpl.. 20 1(>)). l lpon renewal. a rcviC\\ orplaintif'fs motion papers reveals that summary judgment must he granted 10 the plaintiff. The proponent ora summary judgment moLiC)n must make a prima focic showing ol' entitlement to judgmenL as a matter of law. tendering sufficient evidencl.' to diminatl.' a11y mukri ul question or fact from the case. The grant or summary judgment is appropriak only when it is c lear that no 11lal.Crial and triable isSUCS or ftlCt have.: been prl'SCnh;d (,)'i/1111((/J I'. "fll'('Jlfietfl ( .l'Jlf"':I' Fox /-"i/n1 <'()/p .. ~ N'i'>d . 95 (I <))7)). The nioving part)' hears the initial burden or proving 1 c111itkmcnt lo sumrnary judgrncnt (JFinegrll<l 1-. r\f}'(J Medical ( 'enl<'I', (>4 Y'.2d 8:) I ( 1985)). Once ~uch prooChas been profferl.'d. the burden shirts to the opposing party who. to tkkat the mo tion. must offer eviden<.:e in admissible..: form. and must set forth facts sunicient lo require a trial or any issue of 1;1ct (CPI .R :r~ l 2(b): %11ckemw11 ' " ( .i(I' <~f N<111· fork. 4() NY2d 557 ( 1980)). Summary judgment shall only bL· gramcd when there arc no issues of material fac t and thc cvidcncc requires the court to direct a .jw..lument in !"<Ivor of tbe movant as a matter or law (Friends of ,./11i111uls '" .... . . /s.\l1<.:io1ed Fur i\lu1111/i1c1111"'/'S. 46 NY2d I 065 ( 1979)). l·:ntitknH.:nt to summary j udgment in favor of the f'orcclosing plaintiff is established. prinw l~Kie. b~1 the plaintif'Cs production or the mortgage a nd the unpaid note. and evidence ordefoult in pay111c11l (.\'l'<' Wells Fur.~o Hunk, N..-1. ' " f:rohoho, 127 /\D3d I J 7(>. 9 l YS3d .112 (2".i Dept.. 2015): Wells Fargo /Junk. N..l. '" ,-/Ii. s111n·u.)). Where the plaintiffs standing is placed in issue by tlw dcll·mhlnt's answer. the plaintiff must also establish its standing as part or its prima focic showin~ 1 ( . I 11ror11 l.ow1 Serl'ices '" '/'uylor. Sll/JW. : /,oanrnre '" Firshing 130 !\ ()3d 787. 1-t N YS."id .4 I () ('.'" 1 D1.·pt.. 20 l :i): llS8(' /J((11k ( IS1I. N..'1. ' " Huptisre. 128 /\.D3d 77. 10 NYS3d 2:'5 (2'" Dept.. 2015)). The only issuc raised in opposition to the plaintiff's summary judgment motion was thc plain ti lT s claimed lack 01· stand in!!. I laving determined that plainli IT has established standing. thl.! sok rL·maining issUL' conce..Tns vv·hether plaintiff has submitted sufficient proof'tn warra111 a11 order granting. summary judgment. The evidence submitted by the mortgage lender shows. and the <.k l'cndant docs not di spute, that the mortgagors have defaulted under the terms or tbt parties agn.:emcnt by fr1ili11g to make timely monthl y mo1 1gagc payments si nce October I. 2009 and also shows that al1 pre-foreclosure llot iccs required under the terms or the mortgage and pursuant to J {P/\Pl. 1304 were timely served, Thi.: mortgage company, having proven enlitlc111e11t to summary j udµmcnt. it is incumbcnl upon the tkknda11t to submit relevant. eviden tiary proof' sul'licicntl y . ..:uhsta11li\·e to raise u.cnui ne issues or fact concerning why the knder is not entitled to foreclose the mortgage. lkkndant has wholly failed to do so and the plaintiff~s motion must therefore hL' granted . ~ ~ Finally as the defendant has foiled to raise any evidence to address any of his remaining ten ;1ninnativc defenses and one counterclaim set forth in his answer in opposi tion to plaintiWs mo1io11. those a lli rnwt i vc de knscs and counterclaim arc deemed abandoned and an: d isrnissed (Sl'<' 1-·ru11ick ,. / .. !'. Tlwm11/t ( ·o.. Inc.. 70 ;\l)Jd <>48. 892 NYS2d 85 (211<1 D<.:'pt.. :20 10): ( 'itihunk. N.:1. ' " I ·011 Hn1111 / 1ro11fftin. l.U '. 95 /\D.1d I 158, 9·Vi NYS'.2d : o (2'"1 Ikpl.. 20 12 J: F/ogstur !Junk'" n 1 lk//((/iorc. 94 /\ l Xki 1044, 943 NY S2d 551 (2'" Tkpt..2012); Wells Fargo 8u11k Mimwsotu . .V.:1. '" !'Ne::. .i I .1\DJd 590. 8.17 NYS2d 877 {'.2 11" Dept.. 2007)). -4- [* 5] \crnrdingly. upon n.:ne\\al. plainliff~s motion for an order pursuant to CJ>J .R 1212 is granted in its entirety. I he proposed order for the appointment of a rcl~ree has heen signed sirnullancousl~ "ith the c~ccution of'thi'\ onh.:r. Hon. Howar~ H. Heckn1~111 Jr. Dated: May I 0, 20 17 .J.S.C. -5-

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.