Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v McCollin

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v McCollin 2017 NY Slip Op 32743(U) December 20, 2017 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 2548/14 Judge: Thomas F. Whelan Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] MEMO DECISION & ORDER INDEX No. 2548/14 SUPREME COURT- STATE OF NEW YORK IAS PART 33 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PR E S EN T: Hon. THOMAS F. WHELAN Justice of the Supreme Court MOTION DATE 915117 SUBMIT DATE 11130/17 Mot. Seq.# 001 - MG Mot. Seq.# 002-XMD CDISPY_N~ ---------------------------------------------------------------X DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO. in : its capacity as Indenture Trustee for the note holders: of Aarnes Mortgage Investment Trust, 2005-2, BLANK ROME, LLP Attys. For Plaintiff 405 Lexington Ave. New York, NY 10174 Plaintiff, PETROFF AMSHEN, LLP -againstEDMUND McCOLLIN, NERISSA McCOLLIN, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, SLOMIN'S, INC., TAX REDUCTION SERVICES, INC., LVNV FUNDING, LLC, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE CCP LIEN UNIT, CITIFfNANCIAL COMPANY (DE), "JOHN DOE #1 - IO" and "JANE DOE #1 10", the names John Doe and Jane Doe being fictitious, their identities being unknown to the plaintiff, it being the intention of plaintiff to designate any and all unknown person, including but not limited to, the tenants, occupants, corporations, and judgment creditors, if any, holding: or claiming some right, title, interest or lien in or to : the mortgaged premises herein, Defendants. -~-------------------~--~---------~----------------------~X Attys. For Defendants Mccollin 1795 Coney Island Ave. Brooklyn, NY 11 230 [* 2] MEMO DECISION & ORDER INDEX No. 2548/14 SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK IAS PART 33 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: Hon. THOMAS F. WHELAN Justice of the Supreme Court MOTION DATE 9/5/17 SUBMIT DATE 11/30117 Mot. Seq.# 001 - MG Mot. Seq. # 002 - XMD CDISP Y _ N _x_ ---------------------------------------------------------------X DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO. in : its capacity as Indenture Trustee for the note holders: of Aames Mortgage Investment Trust, 2005 -2, BLANK ROME, LLP Attys. For Plaintiff 405 Lexington Ave. New York, NY 10 174 Plaintiff, -againstEDMUND McCOLLIN, NERJSSA McCOLLIN, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, SLOMIN'S, INC., TAX REDUCTION SERVICES, INC., LVNV FUNDING, LLC, UNITED STATES OF AMERJCA INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE CCP LIEN UNIT, CITIFINANCIAL COMPANY (DE), "JOHN DOE #1 - 10" and "JANE DOE #1 10", the names John Doe and Jane Doe being fictitious, their identities being unknown to the plaintiff, it being the intention of plaintiff to designate any and all unknown person, including but not limited to, the tenants, occupants, corporations, and judgment creditors, if any, holding: or claiming some right, title, interest or lien in or to : the mortgaged premises herein, Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------X PETROFF AMSHEN, LLP Attys. For Defendants McCollin 1795 Coney Island Ave. Brooklyn, NY 11230 [* 3] lkulschc L3ank v Mccollin Index No. 2548/14 Page 2 l lpon the fol lowing papers 1 H1mbcrcd I to _ I I_ rl.!ad on this motion to appoint a referee l\I compute, among other things. and cross motion to dismiss : Notice of Motion/(>rder to Show Cause and supporting papo;:~ I - 3 : Notice of Cross Motion and supporting papers: 4-7 : Oppos ing papers: _ _ _ _ _ _ :Reply papers ; Other 8-9 (memorandum); 10-11 (memorandum) ; (ttnd ttlh::r hc:,11i11,,. eon11:r1d in .m,,p(lll mid oppo:1c:d It> the 111Mio11 ) it b. ORDJ::R ED that lhis motion (1/00 1) by lhc plaintiff for, among other things. summary juJgmcnt. amendment ol'thc caption and the appointment of a referee to compute. is granted in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that the cross motion (1/002) by defendants, Edmund McCollin and Nerissa McCollin, for dismissal is denied in its entirety: and it is fu rther ORDERED that the proposed Order submitted by plaintiff, as mod1Jied by the court, is signed simulrnneously herewith: and it is further ORDER£ !) that plaintiff is directed to lilc a notice ol'entry within five <lay-; of receipt of thi s Order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.5-b(h)(3). * This !<.>rcclosure act ion was commenccd by filing on February 6, 2014. The matter wa::; reassigned to this Part pursuant to Administrative Order No. 110-17, dated September 28, 2017 an<l submitted for decision on ovemhcr 30, 2017. In essence. on March 7. 2005. defl!ndants. Edmund McColl in and Nerissa McCollin. borrowed $351.000.00 from the plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest and executed a promissory note and mortgage. The defendants defaulted and on February 26. 2008, the borrowers executed a Loan Modification J\grccment in the new principal sum of $348.705.22. The defendants dcfoultcd, ont:c again. on September 1. 20 I 0 by fa iling to pay the monthly installments due and owing. The defendants submitted an answer to the complaint, alleging twelve aflirmative dclcnses and tlm.:e counterclaims. In the moving papers. plaintiff addresses its burdl..!n of proof on this summary judgment motion and refutes the artirmativc dercnscs of the answer. Therefore, plai nti IThas 'iatisficd its prima li.1cic burden on this summary judgment moticrn (see I/SBC Bank USA, Natl. As.rn. ''Espinal. 13 7 J\03d 1079. 28 NYSJd 107 l2d Dept 20!6J: U.S. Bank Natl. As.rn. v Cox, ltt8 J\D3d 692. 49 YSJd 527 I:?.d Dept 2017]). The bun.kn then shi lb to defendants (see Bank ofA m erica, N.A. v DeNardo. 151 J\D3d 1008. 58 NYSJd 469 j 2d Dept 2017]) and it was incumbent upon the answcnng defendants to submit proof' suflicient to raise a genuine question of fact rebutting plaintiff's prima focic showing or in support of' the arfirmativc defenses asserted in the answer or otherwise avai lable 10 t hcm (see Flagstar Bank ,, Bellafiore. 94 /\03d 1044. 943 NYS2d 551 r2c.J Dept 2012]; Grogg A ssocs. ,, South Rd. Assoc.\·.. 74 J\D3d I 02 I . 907 YS2d 22 l2d Dept 20 I 01: Wells Fargo Bank ,. Karla, 71 J\()Jd I 006. 896 1YS2<l 681 l2d Dept 20 I 01: Wash ington Mut. Bank 1• O'Co1111or. 63 /\DJd [* 4] Deutsche Bank ,. \ kCollin 1 Indc:-; o. '.2548/14 Page 1 832.880 NYS2<l 69(> l2d Dept 2009J: J. P. Morgan Chase Bunk, NA vAgnello, 62 J\D3d 662. 878 NYS2<l 397 j2tl D~pt 20091: A11m es F 111u li11g Corp. v Houston, 44 AD3<l 692. 843 NYS2<l 660 j'.2<l I kpl 20071 ). otahly. aflinnativc <lcl'cnses pred icated upon legal conclusions that arc not substantiated "' ith allegations llf foci arc subject to dismissal (see CPLR 3013. 30 I 81 b I: Katz v M iller. I20 J\D3d 768. 991 NYS2<l 34(1 [2d Dept 20 14J: Beefi er v Feller. 64 ADJ 672. 677. 884 NYS2d 8J [2<l Dept 2009 [: Collen Fasltio11 Opt., /u c. v V & M Opt., Ju e .. 51 AD3d 619, 858 N YS2d 260 I2d Dept 20081). Where u defendant foi Is to oppose some or all matters advanced on a mol ion for summary judgment. the facts as alleged in the movant's papers may be deemed admitted as there is. in cfl~cl. a concession that no question or fact exists (see Kue/me & Nagel, fil e. ,, Baide11, 36 NY2d 539. 369 N YS2<l 66 7 [ I 975]: see also 1l!/adeli11e D 'A 11tlto11y E nter., I nc. v Sokolow.• ;ky, 10 I J\ D3d 606. 957 ' YS2<l 88I1st Dept 2012]: A rgent Mtge. Co., LLC v Mentesmw, 79 AD3d 1079. <)J5 NYS2d 591 l2d Dept 20101). In addition. the failure to raise pleaded affirmative defenses in opposition to a motion for summary judgml!nt renders those defenses nban<loncd and thus without any c11icacy (sel' New York Comm ercial B ank v J. R eal~}' F Rockaway, Ltd.. 108 J\ D3d 756, 969 NYS2d 796 I1<l I kpl 20131: Starkman l' City of Long Beach . I 06 J\D3d I 076, 965 NYS2<l 609 l2<l Dept 2013 j). Th~ <lcfl.!nd<111ls· opposition challt:ngcs plaintilrs mailing or the contractual 30-day notice. as well as the alleged non comp Iiance with RP APL§ 1304. The cross motion (#002) seeks dismissal on these issues. The Court addresses each of these allegations herein. however. in accordance with the above. all oth<.:r arti rmative de lenses and counterclaims raised in the ans-wer and not addressed in the opposition and cross motion are dismissed as abandoned. J\ny claim that the RP/\PL § 1304 notice was not propaly mailed is n..:jcctcd. J\s noted by the (\iurt or Appeals. "Ii [tis a gcneral rule that the law presumes that a letter pmpcrly addressed, stamped and mail ·dis duly delivered to the addressee'' ( Trust & Guar. Co. v Barultardt. 270 NY J.-0, I L2d 459f19361: ,.ec! also E u gel i• licltterm tm . 95 J\D2d 536. 538,467 Y:·2d 64212<.l Dept I 98> I l.. Ii It has long been recngni1.cd in the law of evidence that a letter properly maih.:d is presumed to have hcen received"!) 1lcre. Christy Metcalfc's affidavit states that, upon her personal review, Residential Credit Solutions. lnc.· s (RCS) business records confirm that the 90-day notice was sent to the hommws via first class and certified nwil at the property address. RCS is the prior servicer which sent the 30-day contractual notice and the 90-day pre-action notice. Ms. Metcal re notes that she is personally familiar with Rcs·s regular business practices. and descrihes the procedure by \\'hich the records arc crc,1tcd and maintained. She swears that the business record~ were rel ied upon on a regular basis in the course of plaintiff's husiness activities with respect w this loan in default. and provides in detail the records relied upon. Attached to her alfoJavi l arc copies of' the electronic PDF copies and the ('olkdion Notes. the 30-<lay deli.mil notice..:, the 90-day notice and the Proof of Filing Statement lo the New York State Banking Dcpanmcnt. pursuant to RPJ\PL § 1306, which is offered as proof to tlw state ag<.:ncy thnt the mailing l)CClltTcd on March I I. 20U, pursuant lo the Step One Filmg n.quircment. The [* 5] lkulsdic Bank\' McCollin lndi:x No. 2548!14 Page 4 <.l<H.:umenls contain the W-digil and 20-digit US Postal Service numbers and demonstrates RC'S · :-. standard mailing prm.:ticc and prot:edun:. The alli<lavit adequately sets forth the basis of the aniant 's knowkdge and cstahlishcd the admissibili ty of the documents appended to the affidavit as business n:rnrds nnd <.:ompon~ with the didates of HSBC Bank USA v Ozcan. 154 A.D3d 822. 2017 WL 4657992 (2d Dept 20 17) (see Bank ofA m erica.Natl. A.\·.rn v Bra1111011 . A.D3d . 63 NYS3d 352 j I ' 1 De pl 20 l 7 J; see also O~J•mpus A merica, Inc. " Bever~p Hill-. Surglcal lust.. I I 0 A.D3d I 048. 974 NYS2d 89 pd Dept 20131: Deleon v Port 11111'1. ofN.Y. & N.J.. 306 A.D2d 146. 761 NYS2d 54 I2d Dept 20031). That there is no rcquin:ment that the alfomt have personal knowledge of c,·cry i:nlry is clear. particularly where there is a business relationship between the entities entering and maintaining the records and those incorporating arH.l relying upon them in the regular course of their business (see Citibank. NA ''A brams. I 44 A.DJ<l I 2 I 2. 12 I G, 40 NYS3d 653 f3<l Dept 20 16] I· Polk was entitled to rely on the loan rc<...ords in addressing the issue of possession. as CPLR 45 I sral <lnes not require a person to have pe1 sonal knowledge...... 1: Deutsche Bank f\'at/. Trust Co. v Monica. I 31 A.I )3d 737. 739. 15 NYS3 d 863 I3d Dept 2015 I: I/SBC Bank USA. N.A. v Sage, l 12 A. D3d 1126, I I 27. suprn: Landmark Capital luv., Inc. 11 Li-Slum Waug, 94 A.D3d 418, 941 >J YS2<l I 44 11 st Dept 20 I 211 ··PJainti IT l.!stablishcd its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by relying in part on the original loan Ii k prepared by its assignor. Plaintiff relied on these records in its regular course ur its business"!). A. husine!-s record will he admissible if that record ..\\as made in the regular course of any busin<:ss and ... it was the regular course of such business to make it, at tht time of the act. transaction, occurrence or event, or within a reasonable time thereafter" (011e Step Up, Ltd. v Webster Btu. Credit Corp .. 87 A.D3<l I, 925 1 YS2d 6 1 11 st Dept 20 I 11: CPLR 45 I 8ja ]). While .. the mere filing or papers rccei' cd from other entities is insufficient to qualify the documents as business record:-;, such records may be admitlcd into evic.knce if the recipient can establish personal knowledge of the maker's business practices and procedures. or that the records provided by the maker were incorporated into the recipient's own records or routinely relied upon by the recipient in its husiness.. (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. vMouica, n I J\D3d 737. 15 'YS3d 86313d Dept 2015 I Sll/Jnt: t/l10fi11K State 1• J58t'1 St. & Riverside /)r. /Jou.\·. Co., Inc .. I 00 A.1)3d 1293. <J56 YS2d I% j Jd Dept 20121. citing People" Cratsley. 86 NY2d 81. 90-9 I. 629 NY82c.l 992 [ 1995 j). I lcrc. Ms. Me1callc · s allidavit demonstrates the required reliance upon the reccrds in the regular rnursc or business and such reliability is key to its admissibility (see Corsi" Town of Bedford, 58 A.D3c.I at 231232.8<)8 NYS2d 25812d Dept 2008J. IF. de11ied 12 NY3d 714. 883 NYS2d 797 120091~ Matter <?{Carothers v GEICO /Ju/em. Co.. 79 J\D3d at 865. 914 NYS2d 199 12d Dept 20 I 0 I). The Court ·1-:cd not address de fondants' concerns as to the qualit) of the aflidavit since ii sat is lied the a<lmissibility requirements of CPLR 45 l 8(a) (see Stewart Title Ins. Co. 1 Bank <ifNell' York Me/1011. I 54 A.D3d 656, 6 I N YS3d 634 [,2d Dept 20171; Citigroup v /(opelowitz. 14 7 /\I Btl I 014, J 0 I 5, 48 YSJ<l 223 Pd Dept 20171: se11 generally Citimortgage, Inc. ''Espinal. J 34 /\ D3d 876. 23 NYS3d 25 I pd Dept 20 I 5 j). 1 " 11 is the Co llr t whi<.:h must determine the threshold requirement l(ir aJmissibility (see People K e1111et(I'. (18 NY2d al 576. 5 I 0 YS2<l 853 j 1986 I). The Court or Appeals in Bos. nk 11 Steinber,!(. r [* 6] Ikutschc Ban"" v M;.;C'ollin Inc.lex No. 2548/J 4 Page 5 58 J\ Y2d <)I(>. 919. -l-60 N YS2c.l 509 ( 1983) held that then.! was no need to prnc.luu.: th<.: person who did the actual mailings since ..I tjhe proof th<.: Shcrifr s rcgulur course business in this regar<l -;uniccd:· In llospital f or Joint Diseases 1• Elrac. Ju e.. 11 /\l)3d 432. 433. 78> NYS2d (> 12 (2<l or or D~pl 200..+ ). the Sccon<l Department held that an arfiduvit based upon records muintaincd by an insurer in the or<li nary course of business did constitute admissible C\'idcnce (.. Personal knowledge o r such documents. their history. or specific content arc not necessarily requirtd or a document custndian··). Various ca-;es. particularly in the Second Department, have held that such business records arc adm issihle (see CitiMortgage, Ju e. v E spinal. 134 /\D3<l 876 . .rnprn: Olympus A merica, In c. v Be ver~)' Iii/ls S urgical Inst., 110 A D3d I 048. supra; Burrell v Barreiro, 83 /\D3d 984. 922 NYS2d 465 12d Dt.:pt 2011 j; DeLeo11 v Port A utlt. of N. Y. & N.J.. 306 /\D2J l ~6 . .rnprnl: We're . . ts.m es. Co. ,. Rodin Sportswear ltd. , 288 /\D2d 465. 734 NYS2d l 04 2d Dept 20011: Spa11ge11herg v Clurloupka. 229 AD2d 482. 645 NYS2d 514 [2d Dept 19961). I !ere. ( 'hristy M<.:tcaile. as the current recipient or the records. can establish pcr::;onal knm,vlcdge or the maker's business practices and procedures . ..and the records th1.:msclvcs actual ly i:vincc the facts for which they arc relie<l upon (citations omitted)" (Citigroup v Kopelmvitz. 147 /\D3J IO1-+. sup ra). There fort.:. this Court holds that the records relied upon. in tht.: afiidavit or Christy Metcal r~. arc a<lmissihk pursuant to the business records rule. R~jectcd as unmeritorious is defendants· counsel's claim that the plainti 1rs ani<lavit or mt.:rit is insulfo.:ient due lo a luck or personal k1mwlc<lgc on the part of the aflfont. who is an employee of the pri or servicer and sender orthc required notices. Notahly. i:vcn undcr the dictates o f CitiMortgage, Jue. " Pappas. 147 /\D3<l 900. 47 NYS3<l -1- 15 (2d Dept 2017). plaintiff has met its burden. Due proof of the mailing o f the RP/\PL 1304 notice can he e~tahlished hy any one of three alternative methods. First. by the submission or an allidavil of service ( ,·ee J PMorgan Cltase Ba11k, N.A. v Schott. 130 AD3d 875. 15 NYS3d 159 I2d Dept 20151; Well.\ F argo " Mow. 129 AD3d 946. 13 NYS3d 12 7 [2d Dept 2() 151): second. hy ··proor or mailing by the post offa;<.; .. alternative method or proof of proper mai ling st:l forth in CitiM orlJ:"f.:e, Inc. 1• Pappas. 14 7 /\DJ<l 900 . .\'11/Wa): or the third method. that is, the husint.:ss n.:cord cxc.:eption altcrmniw or proorof propcr mailing set forth in Citiftfo rtgage, Inc. "Puppt1s. 147 AD3d * 900. s11pm ( see CPI.R 4518 ). Based upon the discussion set forth above. Christy Metea llc's arri<lavi t satislics the third allcrnativi:s under CitiM ortgage, Inc. v Pt1ppas. 147 AD1d 900, supra: see genern/~1 · Flagstar Ba11k. f~')B v Men doza. 139 /\ IBd 898. 12 YS3d 27812<.l Dept 20161). The aridavil a<lcquatcly sets forth the basis of her knowledge and established the adm issibi lity of the <locuments appcnckd to the affida,·it as hl:.·ine:-;s records (see O~}·mpus A m erica, Jue. •· Bel'er~J' Hills S urgical Inst .. I I 0 /\D3d I04~ . .\l/pw: DeLeo11 11 Port A utlt. of N. Y. & N.J.. 306 /\D2d 146, s upra). I Jere. pl.1intiff sat isfied the mailing requirements of RP/\PL § 1304 and the ckr;rnlt noliCL' with Ms. Mctcal fl:· s affidavit. which adequately set fo11h the basis of her knowledge and established the admi-;sihilit y nr the documents appended lo the affidavit as husini:ss recot<ls (see O/y mpuJ A ma ica, luc. '' Berer~r /Ji/I.+; S urgical Inst .. 110 /\D3<l 10-1-8. s111wa: DeL eo11 t• Port A utll. ofN. Y. & N.J. . :106 /\D2d 14(>. supru). /\s such. the Court finds lht: defendants· denial or receipt lo he without merit. since the plaintiff is only required lo send the nol1 ccs. [* 7] lkulschc Bank v vkCullin lncle.x No _2548/14 Page() The Court also rcje<.:ls lhe <.:I aim concerning the Iisl or five housing counseling agencies (see RP/\PL §1304[2 [). The claim that the notice was non-compliant because three nJ'the six listed housing counsel ing agencies were located in Nassau County instead of Suffolk County is substantively lacking in merit The statute. applicable at the time of mailing, did not require that the list of Ii \'l.: housing counselors selected by the plaintiff he those with offices in the ('CJw1ty wherein the bornl\\er resides Rat hcr. the statute provided that '·the department of financial services and/or the division or housing and community renewal shall make available a listing. by rexion, or such agencies which the lender or mortgage loan servicer may use to meet the requirements of this scction'" lemphasis added- and the lender is free to chose counselors on either list (id.). The list I provided satisfied the Long Island Region requirement. The dd(;ndanls· cross motion is denied. The Court therefore. grants plaintiffs motion (#001) in its entirety, denies Jclcndants · (;ross motion (f/002) in its entirety and simultaneously signs the proposed Order, as modified.

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.