US Bank Natl. Assn. v Priftakis

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

US Bank Natl. Assn. v Priftakis 2017 NY Slip Op 31682(U) August 2, 2017 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 30510/2012 Judge: Thomas F. Whelan 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 FORM ORD.ER corr INDEXNo. 30510/1 2 SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK I.A.S. PART 33 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: Hon. THOMAS F. WHELAN Justice of the Supreme Court ---------------------------------------------------------------X US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, not in its individual capacity, but solely as Legal Title Trustee for LVS Title Trust I, MOTION DATE: 5/ 18/17 SUBMIT DATE: 6/30/ 17 Mot. Seq. # 003 - MD Mot. Seq.# 004 -XMD Conference Sched: 8/22/ 17 CDISP: No GREENSPOON MARDER PA, PC Attys. For Plaintiff 1270 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Plaintiff, BALLON, STOLL, BADER et al -againstLEONID AS PRIFTAK.IS, ANNA PRIFTAKIS, BRADCO SUPPLY CORP., MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE, : ASSOCIATED MATERIALS, LLC, RIVERHEAD: BUILDING SUPPLY CORP., ALLIED BUILDING: PRODUCTS CORPORATION, FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, LLC, KLEET LUMBER CO., INC., PETRO, INC., ET AL, Atty. For Defendants Priftakis 729 Seventh Ave. New York, NY 10019 Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------)( Upon the 'following papers numbered I to _1_4_ read on this motion bv plaintiff for summary judgment dismissing the affirmative defenses and cross motion for an order dismissing the complaint, among other things ; Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause and supporting papers I - 4 ; Notice of Cross Motion and suppo1ting papers _ 5-9 ; Answering papers 10/11 ; Repl y papers 12-13 ; Other 14 (affidavit) ; (1tnd afte1 heating, cot1nsel i11 St1ppol't and opposed to the 111otio11) it is, ORDERED that this motion (#003) by the plaintiff for an order award ing it summary judgment dismissing the affirmative defenses asserted in the answer served by the answering defendants and an award of summary judgment on the plaintiffs complaint, the identification of the true name of one of two defendants served with process as Jane Doe and the deletion of the John Doe defendant, default [* 2] US Bani.. ' Prifiak1s Nn. >OS I O J2 / Page 2 Jn de~ j udgmcnts against all other tklendan{s served '"ith process. ind uding the two scrn.:J as .lane Doc. and an order appointing a rcl(;n.:e to computt.:. is considcn.:d u1H.kr CPI ,R 3212. 3215. I 0:2-L I 003 and R PAPI,~ 13~ I and is <.knictl: und it is rurthl.!r ORDERED that those ponions or the cross molion ( #004) b:r the answering dell:nJant:-.. Leonid as Pril"takis and t\nna Priftakis. for an order dismissing the complaint served in this morq!ag.e roreclosun.: actitm pursuant to CPLR 321 I(a)( 4) an.: considen.:d thereunder and are denied: and it is runht.:r ORDl:.:RED that those portions of the cross motion (11004) by the Pril"takis defendants for an orc.kr consolidating this action \· ith a prior action pending before another Justice or this court is v considered under CPI .R (>02 and arc denied: and i1 is further ORDER1'.:D that those portions of the cross motion (f/004) by the Prili.akis defendants for an order permitting them to lik an amendi.!d answer is considered under CPLR 3025(d) and an.: denied: and it is further ORDl:.:RED that the l\.•maining portions of the cross motion (#00-l) lor nn order linding that the plaintiff acted in bad faith in l"ai ling to accept settlement ofkrs or to oiler a modi lication ag.rce111ent fol km ing the release of"this action from the speciali/.c mortgage foreclosure settlement confon.:nce part and rdl:rring the action back to said part arc considered umkr CPLR 3408 an<l arc denied: and it is lurther ORD/:.,"RED that a status confon.:nce shall to held herein on August 22, 201 7. at 9:.:rn a.111 .• in the courtroom of the undersigned loL:ated in the Annex Building or the Supreme Court at One Court Street. Riverhead. i ew York , 1190 I. al which. the coun shall inquire or counsel as to the readiness or this action for the upcoming trial. The plain1iffco1111m:nccd this action to foreclose the lien ora Ft..:bruary 9. 2007 mt>rtgag.e given by the Pri llakis defendants Lo American I loml! Mortgagt..: to sl!curc a mortgagl.! note in the principal amount or $999. 999.00 like\\ ise gi,·en by defendant. Leonidas Pri liakis. on that date. In response to the plainti IT s service or the summons and L:nmplaint and other initiatory papers. the Pri ftakis defendants appeared herein by answer. ·1herein. the Pril!akis defendants admit that they defaulted in their payment ohligations t11H.kr the terms nr the note and mortgage. while reserving a challenge to the exact amount or tlH.' delinquent debt. Thcy also asserted three affirmative defenses. two or wh id1 challcngt: the stnnding or the plaintiff to maintain this action for foreclosure and sale and the other ch;.illenges lhl· plainti IT s comp Iiance "·ith the ninct:r day notice provisions imposed hy RP /\PL~ I 30-L Ali.er unsuccessfully moving to compel prodrn:tion or certain dPcumcnts . the f>riftakis deft:ndants moved. by motion prepared by their current counsel hearing a return date in May of"201 (l. for summa ry judgment dismissing the plainliff s complaint. The motion was premised on lhc following grounds: I} that thi.! plaintiff lacks stund ing bccaust.: ··the plaintiff has failed to establish its lmnership or the note'" a11d ··f"aileJ lO establish its ownership the mortgage"': 2) that the plaintiff foiled tu establish compliarn.:e \\ ith the RP/\PI. ~ 1303 separate notice: 3) that the plaintiff !ailed to or [* 3] l IS Bank ' Priftakis Index o. 1051011 2 l'ag...; 3 cstublish complia1H.:L' with RP/\PL § J 30-l: anJ -1) the plaintiff l~1ilccJ lo cngagL' in good l"i.1ith ncg.otiatinns to rcsolve its claim by wa1 of a loan modification or other resolution thcreby warranting a court imposc<l loan modi tication or sa1H.:tio11s. That motion wa~ denied by order of this court <lated m·cmber 18. 20 I(> ''hi ch order remains in dkct. In tht: instant cross motion (i/00-1 ). tht: d<..:lcn<lants 111ovt: for much nf the sam1: n.:I it:t' they dcmamkd in their prior motion for summary judgment together with the a<l<litional relic!' outline<l a hove. For the reasons statc<l bdow. thi.: defcn<lanls · cross motion (#004) is denied. It is well established that successive motions for summary ju<lgment should not g.em:rally b<.: <.:ntertained. absent a showing l)f newly discovered e\·idcnee or other sufficient cause (see Ti11gli11g 1• C !.N. 11.R., Ju e .. 120 /\D3d 570. 992 YS2<l 43 f 2d Dept 2014 j: Vi11ar "Litma11 . J J 0 /\D3d 8(>7. 972 NYS2d 70-1 j 2d Dl.!pt 20131 ). lln<lerlyi ng this rule an.: long standing notions of'judicial economy and finality which warrant the rejection of' successive motions for summary judgment that arc has\.!d upon 1;1cts or arguments which coul<l have been submitted nn the original motion for summary judgm<.:nt (st'e M LCFC 2007-9 ACR J \·terSPE, LLCvCamp Waubeeka, LLC. 123 AD3d 1269. 999 1YS2J ltfa. 202 j 3d Dept 2014 I: Vi11ar v Litman . I I 0 /\D3d 8(>7. supra: Cap1u1110 v Platwer 11111. Group. ) /\D3d ()20 at Ci2 l. 774 1 YS2d 780 [2d lkpl 200-1 f). I krc. th<.: defendants· current cross motion (ff004 ). whik not drnominated as one for summary judgml'nl. is one orthal natun.: due lo its interposition ancr service or the delendc.mts' answe1· and prior motion for summuryj udgment (Se<! CPI .R 3212). /\ re,·ic" orthe contents of tht: instant cross motion (11004 ) r<.:veals that it is premised. in large part. upon duims. arguments and contentions that were. or could have been. asscrt<.:d in the deli:ndams · prior motion fo r summary judgment and no showing or sul'fieicnt cause or nc\\'ly discovered evidence is disccrnahle from the cross mo\'ing papers or rcpl) submissions or the dcl~n<lants . The de ll:ndants · continued reliance on the plainti tr s purpo11cd failures to comp I) "ith statutory notice rcquir...;ments is misplaced as these matters were rejected pr<.:viously by the t:oun and no sunicicnl cause nor newly discovered evidcnct: was put before the court on lh is motion which would warrant a r1:considcrntion of said issues. Lqually unavailing is the defendants· continued reliance upon purported acts or had foith on lhe part the pla intiff in its settlement talks with the defendan ts which arc alleged t() have hecn u11de11akL·n n.:ccntly but well alter the CPLR 3408 -;cttlemcnt processes were concl udcd . 1lowc\ er. none of these communications or discussions constitute suffici<.:nl cause or ne\\'I~ discovi;red c,·idcncl· for purposes or dcl'cati ng the rule.: against succcssi ve motions for summary judgment. /\.s slated in the couri·s prior order or November J 8. 201 (> ... this 1.:ourt is unaware or any statutor; ur 1.:011trulling. appcllatt: case authorities that continues the requirement to nl:.'gotiatc in good foith imposed b~ ( "PLR 3·W8 to extra·judicinl. communications occun-ing alicr the CJ>LR 3408 conl'erence processes arc condu<lcd and the de!Cndants haYc pointed to none in their submissions·· on their cross motion. The dekndunts' latest complaints about the plaintifrs purported \\Tongful conduct arc thus rcjccted as lacking in merit. or /\ccordingl). the followini; rortions or lhe d...;fcndants" ~ross motion (1/00-1) are denied: Jismissal l)r thl! w111plaint due to the failure to comply with RP /\Pl.* 1303 and ~ 130-1: dismissal or [* 4] l fS Bank v Prirtakis lmk~ o. ~051Oil2 Page -l- th<.: 1.:omplaint dt1c to a purported lad, of standing on the pan oflh.: plaintiff: and a declaration that the plaillli IT foikJ to negotiah.: a sellkmcnt in good faith thereby \Varranting the imposition of sanctions anJ a rdl:rral of this at:tion hack to the spccialiF.ed mortgage fr>rcclosurc sculc.:melll conlcrcnc<..: part. /\lso JcnicJ arc those..: portions of' the defendants· cross motion (/I004) wherein they se1.:k a dismissal of th1.: complaint pursuant to (' PLR 3211 (a)(-l-) due to the purported pcn<lcnc.) of' a prior action to rorcclosc the su~ject mortgage. This application is untimcl) and as such ef"li.:cts a \\aiv1.:r or that ground ror dismissul unc.kr the provisions or CPLR 3211 (c) (see M idfirst Bank ,, Ajala. l-l-6 ;\l)~d 875, 44 NYS3d 771 l2d Dept 2017]). Moreover. the prior at:tion. entitled CitimorlJ:age ,, Pr{ftaki.\· bc<lring Index umber 036 796/10 I 0. has been dist:ontinued (see Order dati..:d Jul) 28. 20 I 7 jR1.:holini. J.j). I his circumstance, coupled \\ith the dormancy of that action over its Sl.!\Cn year <.::\ istenccthat ended upon the plainti frs Ii I ing of its motion to <liscont inue (i/00 I ), nu Iii lies al I grounds for dismissal or this action due to the dual pendcncy of thi s action and that prior action (see Well.\· Fargo Bank v lrrizary. 142 /\DJd 610. 36 NYSJd 689 l:!d Dept 2016!). 'or is dismissal of this action warranted due to a purported lack or in pcrsonam jurisdiction m·cr the defendants. That defense was waived by the defendants· l'ailurc to raise it in a pre-answer motinn to dismiss and by their appearances herein b) ans'v\crs that did not inclulk thatjurisdictinnal tkfcnsc (see CPLR 32 I 1Ic J: American /Imm! Mtge. Seri•., Inc. 1• Ark/is. 150 AD3d I 180. 2017 WI. 2347087 j2d Dept 20171: Midjint Bank vAjala. 146 /\IBd 875. supra: Ge11emtio11 1 Wtge. Co. 1· .l1edi11a. 138 1 \D]d 688. 27 f\ YS1d 88 1 l2d Dept 20161). Thos1.: portions or the dclcndants · cross motion (#004) wherein tht.:y seek an order consol iduting this m:lion with the prior action entitled Citimortgage v Pr{ftakis, hcaring. lndt.:x Number 0367%/2010. is denied. /\s indicated aoc>Ve. the plainti IT in that act ion recently moved (1100 I) to discontinue that long donnant case. Since that motion has now been granted (see Order dated July 28. '.W 17 I Reho Iini . .I. j). there is no pending. action with which this action may be consolidated. Finally. the court dt.:nies all remaining portions or the defendants· eross motion (fl004). including their demand for an order granting them leave to amend their answers. /\!though c.kknse counsel requests .. the Court to accept the amended J\ ns,,·cr annexed herein·· (see 411 I} of the aninnation of dcll:nsc counsel in support or the cross motion). no such amended answer was l(Htnd to be annexed. l"hi..: application for this relier is thus violative of the mandates of'CPLR J025(b) and is thus denied as lacking in merit. !'hose portions of the plain ti tr s motion ( /1 00~) wherein it seeks summary .i udgmcnt dismissi nt-t th1.: affirmative defenses set forth in the answers served h) the ddcndants and for summary judgment 011 th...: plainLitrs complaint against them is considered under CPLR 3212 and ~518 and arc <.knicd. The al'lidavit orm1.:rit suhmittc<l by a vice president of the plaintiffs currL'llt loan scrvicL'rand attorncyin-foct u1H.kr a limi ti..:d power or attorney dated February I 6. 201 (>. is insufli1.:ie11t to cstahlish the plaintirl's cntitkmcnt to the summary judgment dismissing the defendants· pleaded standing am! RJ>/\PL ~ 130-l-dcfi.:nscs (see M&TBa11k ••Joseph. __ AD3d _. 20 17 WL 2961 -1-21 j2d lkpt 20 171: De11tsclleBa11kNatl. TrustCo.11Cllrli11. _ /\D3d _ _ .2017WL28559181 2d Dept 2017 1: Citibank, N .. L 1· Wood. 150 /\1)3d 813. 2017 WL 1<)()121812d Dept 20171: CitiMortgage, luc. 1• [* 5] l JS Bank\ l'riltakis lnde:-; No. 10510/ 12 Page 5 Pappas. 1-P 1 \D1d 900. -1-7 NYSJc..1415 l2d Dept 20 l 71: Arch Bay J/oldi11g.o;, LLC v A lbanese. 1-1-6 /\ D3d 8-1-(>. -1-5 N YSJd 506 j2d Dept 20 171: U. S. Bank, N atl. Ass 'n v N oble, 144 /\ D3d 788. -l I NYS3d 7'> 12d Dept 20 16 I: A urora Loan S ervs.. L LC 1· Baritz. 144 /\D3d 6 18. 619 (>20. 4 l NYSJd 55 I2d Dept 2016 l: //SBC M orfgaxe Senn-., Inc. v Roy al. 142 /\03<l 952. 37 N YS3c..I 321 !2c..1 Dcpl 20161: De11tsc/1e Bank N atl. Tmst Co. v Brewton . 1-1-2 /\DJ<l (>83. 685, 37 YS3<l 25 12c..l lkpt 2016 j). The r~nrnin i ng portions ul'the plaintiffs motion for defoultj udgmcnts against the remaining. ddi.:ndants served with process is granted to the e:-.: tent that the defoults in answeri ng ol' all such defendants arc hereby lixed and <letcrmincd. /\II other n.:lier demanded by the plaintiff is denied without prejudil.:c. To n.:ady this matter for trial a status conferenec shall he hd<l herein on A u~u st 22, 20 17. ( 'ounsd for the respective parties an~ directed lo appear tht:reat ready lo conl"er witl'll'ht.: court. , ,,,., ; ' I f' DATED: I 8:' V); fr! , _ -! c/ I .! r· I .:' .('· ; I ~ 'drJ,~· · ' Tl IOMis (''\VI l~LJ\N. L ' .C.

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.