Ing Bank, F.S.B. v Diluggio

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Ing Bank, F.S.B. v Diluggio 2011 NY Slip Op 33560(U) December 28, 2011 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 23750-10 Judge: Daniel Martin Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SIIOllT HlI<,\1 OIWFI( SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK [AS PART 9 SUFFOLK COUNTY INDEX NO., 23750·10 PRESENT: HON. DANIEL MARTIN MotlOll x Date: 0-()()-20 II Mot. Seq. No.: OOI-MG INe BANK, F.S.B. PLAINTIFF'S .'Try, Plaintiff, FEIN, SUCH & U'AN E, LLP 747 Chestnut Ridge Roat!, Suite 200 Chestnut Ridge, N. Y. t 9077-6216 -againstKATHY MARIE DILUGGIO, AS AIJMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF RICHARD MAHONEY AIKIA RICHARD A. MAHONEY: BOARD OF nIRECTORS OF BI RCHWOOO AT SPRING LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., BARBARA EISENHARDT; NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OIBIO INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ".JOHN DOE #1·5" AND ".JANE DOE #1-5.:' said names being fictitious, it beino the " intentioll of Plaintiff to designate any and all occupants, tenants, persons or corporations, if allY, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the premises being foreclosed herein DEFENDANT'S ATTY: TAYLOR I(LDRIIlGE, I'.C. For Defendant BIRCH\VOOn AT THE SPRING LAKE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 811 \V. Jericho Turnpike Suite 210W Smithtown, N. Y. 11787 . Defendants. ---------_._-- -------_ .. _, 1J!~_J()IJ(fwill~Jlallled papers !Jan' hecn read on this motion; .~~~~~~------Order £0 Show CuuselNotitc of IVI(J[ioll Crw;.'i-Motioll ,\Ilswcring _\J'Jidavils Repl\'ing Aflidavits ______ :s_ The unopposed motion (001) by the plallltiff for, Illkr alia, ,In order pursuant to CYLR 3212 a W:I rd ing pa rtl ,ll summary j uc!gmcil tIn its favor aga 1nst the defendant all d the plai nti tr on tIll' COUIlICIT lalm. B I n:lnvood /\ t Spring Lake HOlllco'Nllcrs Association, Inc., and strikIng Its answer; illllClldll1g lill' (;lptllll1; iippUIllllllg (I referee to compute amounts due purSU,II1t to RPAPL ~ 1311; ~lncllur c()unscllccs, cOSL~alld (1Ishlll"scnh .. 'l1h. IS grallted. [* 2] IN(j l-sallKv DILuggio Index No .. 23750-JO l'lg.2 The plaliltifl: INC; Bank, FS8, commenced thIS action to !()reclose a mortgage it l10lds 0[1Cl~rtlill real property known as 26 JLllia Clrc1c, Middle Island, New York 11953, formcrly owncd by R1C1l:1I\1 l\lbl1Oney also known dS RIchard A. Mahoncy ("the decedent") The decedcnt died inkslate Oil May 10, 2()()l) leaving as hIS two heirs at law Kathy Mane D1Luggo, sued herein <l:-iK,nhy M,ll"il' DiLuggHI (" D iLuggi ()") as Adl11ll11 stTatnx 0 hhe dccedent' s estate, and her sister, th e detl'tlclan t 13,1lXll'<1 .l.scnh'lI\1t r 1 ("Eisenhardt"). On Septcmber 16,2009, Letters 01' AclIninisu-<Ition with respect tll [he c1cce(]enr's esU[e \VeIT issued tn Dd,.ugglo by the Surrogate's Court, Suffolk County under IIle No ,l3I/\2009!A. Issue was joined by the defendant and the pl,lInti If on the countercl<\ ill'<,Birchwood J\j The SPrlllg Lake Homc Owners AssociatlOn, Inc ("Blrchwood"). rn its ans'Vver, 8irchwood denIes sOllle allcgation;-; ill the cOll1pJai11tand den ies know Iedge or information as to other all egati ons. 13Ircllwoocl <11 ilSS<.::rts rec so tll :lffi rmilti ve de fenses, (j ., ti rst" countcrclaill1/cross-c1ai I1lagamst all parti cs and two add iti llrUlIcross-c I,\11l1S agall1st dcl'l:l1dant Di Luggio 1-(lrmoney Judgments, In Its first and second affirnw.tive dcfcn;-;es, Birchwood alleges that its filed lIen for unpaid assessments IS entitled to priority III thIS actlull and that it is enutled tn all surplus monies at a surplus money hcanng/sale. In Its third affirmative delense, Birchwood alleges th~Hthis Coun lacks persona!.JunsciJction over Ij on the basis that service of process was improper J Il its "first" COlllllerelalln and cross-claml against 311 parlles, Birchwood, as a defendant-plaIJlti1l~ demands, ill pan, a declaratory Judgment adding all outstancllllg sums which continue to accrue for assessments, common charges and related fees to its filed lien; perl1l1tt111gBIrchwood to enforce sald lIens and/or seek a cleten1l1nation of priority thereof In any independent action or proeced111g, ll1cluding a surplus money procecdll1g; and gnmting Bncbwood a foreclosure and sale and an ordr;:r extinguishing certain subsequently filed Ilens. In its second cross-claHn, Bircll\vood requests a money .Judgment agalilst DILuggio ~lS Adn1Hllstratnx of the decedent's estate for, ll1t:eralia, unpaId 8sscssmcnts, common charges, [,lle ch,lrgc;-; and llltcrcst III ,lll amount to be proven at trial. In Its tlurd cross-c!allll, BIrchwood requests a IllLHh:y Jlldglllel1t ag,linst DiLuggio as Adnllnistratrix and as heir o1'thc decedent's estate f~)r, inter alia, lllllXlid :lSSCSSlnents, COllmlUll charges and hite charges ill the amoun [ of $13, S()7. 3 7, plus j ntcrest ~llld ~11'l(lrl1eys fees, Parenthetically, 111 third cross-claim, no claim IS madc by Birchwood against Eisenhardt ,IS :111 the heir o1'th(' decedent's estate. In its reply, the plamtiffhas dell led some allegations III the countcrci:linl and dCllled knO\v1edge or lIltormation as to other allegations therein. The plal1ltiff now moves I~lran (ll-dt'r pursllil nt to C P LR 32 J:2 strikll1g B irellwood' s answer and affi nnatl ve de lenses, fOI'an amendment IIr Ihe '-',lption, ,md for the <lppointment ofa referee to compute pursuant to RPAPL 01311. The l'emaillil1~ dl'lcndants have not appeared or answered the complaint or the cross CLIIIllS (set', CPLR 30 [.'\ I'aj; 3() Ir) l:eI]), ,md no oppositIOn has been tikd to this motion. A P l:ll11tlIT i11a mortgage IlJrec 10Sllrc acti 011eslab 11 shes (] pn IIIa i~l('1 case for SUllllll<1 J Ud!;'-lllClll c ry by sllhmlSSlon of 1he Illortg,lge, the mortgage note, bond or obligation, and eVIdence of ddllult (scc, Garrison Special Opportuflities Fund, L.P. v Arthur l(jll Hillside Del'. Co" LLC, X2 AD3d 1042, 91 ~ NYS2d 894 [2d Dcpt 20 11]; Cou1It/YlPide Home Loans, fllc. J7 DelpluJUse, 64 AD3d 624,883 N'{S:2d 135 [:2d Dcpt 2009"1; Washingto1l Mm. Ballk FA I' 0 'Co//llor. 63 AD3d 832, 880 NYS2d 6061"2c1 Dcpt :2()()91J. Als(), a IiI'S!" ortgage foreclosure 5,lle, except to thc extent of surplus llloneys, extlngulsl1cs all pI-lor IICll,,, m and ves1s rull title In the grantee (,.,-ce. RPL ~ 339-z; Fleet Mortg. Corp. Nieves, 272 AD2d 435, 707 N'{S.2d ()71 [2e1 Dcpt 2()(jO]; (IE Capital k!ortg, SerJ7S, l' Misevicis, 2()4 AU2d 9()3, hi.?: i\1'y'S2ci 17.'1 I)d Dcpt 11)04]). The plclintiJTprodltccd the note and l110rtgClgeoecuted by the deccc!cnt 011rcbnlary 2JJ, 2()07 [* 3] INC; B<mk v DiLuggio Index 1',10.: 23750-10 <lIH.l recorded on Aprr 13,2007, as well as eVidence ofnonpaymcnt by DiLugglo. Acklitiollally, the plaintIif submitted the "Notice of Lien For Unpaid Assessments" allegedly executed and s\vorn to 011Octobel- 2l), lOW) by the President of Birchwood and purportedly stamped filed by Judith A. Pascale, Clerk ofSurrolk ('uum)' Oil November 12, 2009. Therefore, thc plaintdl demonstrated Its prima JJCIC cntitlelllCll1' ro JudgmcIlt as a mattcr orlaw as to the default in payment by DILugglO (see, US Bank Nat!. Assoc. v Ead(~F, 79 AD3d 1022,914 NYS2d 901[2d Dept 2010J), as well as proof that the mortgage was executed ~lI1d recorded prior to Birchwood's lien (see ({/SO, CPLR5203;DimesSavi/lgs Ballk v Hober{.\;,167 AD2d 674, 563 NYS2d 25313d I,)ept 1990]). The burden thus shifted to the Bircllwood,to prodLLce eVldenti,ll),' proof III admiSSible form sul1'icient to demonstrate the eXlstence ora tnable Issue of J:~lct s to a bona l'ide dcl"cllse a to the action (se("gel/cral/v, EiHC II 1l1tge. Corp. Riverdale Assoc.\'., 291 AD2d 370, 7 NYS2d 114 1:2d Dept 2()()2]; Patersou v Rodney, 285 AD2d 453, 727 NYS2d 333 [2d Dept 200 I]). n Bm.'l1wood faded to raise a triable Issue oftilct as the gencral denials set forth in its answer an: Insufl1clcnt, as a matter of law, to defeat the plaintilTs unopposed motion (st'c, Alvarez l' Prospect f-{ospital, 68 NY2d 320, 508 NYS2d 923 [1986]; qtibank, N./1. v SOl/to Ge.flell Co., 231 AD2cl4G(), ()47 NYS2d467 [1';1Dept 1996]; Greater N. Y. Sin'. Bauk v 2 J 20 Real(v /nc., 202 A D2d 248, 60S N YS2d 463 Dept I994J). Moreover, the affirmative defenses set forth rn the answer, \vhieh are factually unsupported by an aflidavit fj-om an officer of Birchwood ((".g.,Zuckerman l' City (~fNew YOr/i, 49 NY2d 557, 5()3, 427 NY2d 595 [1980J; 2 N. St. Corp. v Getty Saugerties Corp., 6)) i\D3d 1392, 1395, NYS2d 217 [3d Dept 2009J; Simp:wll v King, 48 AD3d 788, 788, 915 NYS2d 591[2c1 Dept 2008]), al'c without apparclll merit (see, Arge/lt Mtge. Co., LLC I! lv/emesaua, 79 AD3d 1079, iVeigllbor!lOod HOlls. Servs. N. Y. City, II/C. ¢ ' ivleltzer, 67 AD3d 872, 889 NYS2d 627 [2d Dept 2009"]; Bellejicial Homeowller Sen'. I' Girt/lilt, 60 AD3d 984, k75 NYS2d 815 [2d Dept2009J). More, specJt'ically, the 1Irst aflirlllativc defcllse i~ stricken as \,vitholltment as the subject mortgage is a recorded first mortgage and lien upon the PITlllISCS, alld, as such, Birchwood's lien, is subordin3tc (see, RPL ~ 339-7.; Bankers Trust Co. I-' Hourd (~j'il:/al/agers of Park 900 Condominiuw, 81 NY2cl 1033, 600 NYS2d 191 [1993J; Dillie Sa 1'. Bank l' Kakar, 203 AD2d 50, 610 NYS2d 33 [1'1 Dept 1994J; C/, Foxwood RUII CoudowiniulIll' Goller Place e()ll)., 166 Misc2d 216, 624 NYS2d 758 [Sup Ct, Richmond County, Sept. 14, 19<)5]; ("Olllj)(lre, Fleer iv/ortg. Corp. "Nicves, 272 AD2d 435, 707 NYS2d 671 [2d Dept 2000J; Victoria H/oods Homeowflers Ass 'II I' Gonyo. 192 AD2d 1107,596 NYS2d 259 [1993])_ Regarding the second artirm<Iriw defense, ~II1Y l~ialIl1by Blrch\vood to priority ovcr other named defendants herem to surplus monies, IfallY, is 110ta v,lild defcl1se to thiS foreclosure ,lction as the Court, via a surplus money procecdmg, wil1 dcterll1111etile priority ofcntitlt:mcm to surplus funds, I rany (see, RPAPL ~0 i361; 1362; Amcrican Holdings IIII!. COIl).v Joscy, 7) AD3d 927, 89lJ NYS2d 252 [2d Dept 2010]). Thus, the second aJ1'irlllativc defen~c is stricken Till' third artlrmatlve defense that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Blrclnvood is stricken as Blfelnvood docs not ~illcgc by way ofafi'idavlt ['roIll an officer thereof that it was not properly served \vIlh process herell1 (s{'C', .4.ssocillfes First Capital COIl}. I! Wiggins, 75 AD3d 614, 904 NYS2d 668 [2c1 Dcp!' lOIn]). Ivlureo vcr, 1his de ICnse \\',15\Va ived as R Irelnvood )~lllcd to Illove to d 1SIllIss the com p Ia 1111 agallls tit Oil tillS gruunti Within ()O days alter serving its answel- (.vec, CPLR 321 I ~ J; ReJ1es.' Albertsoll, h2 /\ lYk1855, ,'\71\ e NYS2d hD 12d DCp12()()9]~ Dimond v Verdon, 5 /\D3d 718,77.1 NYS2d 603 pd Dept2()04-1). 111 :\11Y event, Hlrchwood lilllcd to oppose thiS monon and lack of Opposition IS talltamount ro C()Il:-;CI11 (S('(', Hermitage Ius. Co. v Trallce Nite Club, IllC., 40 AD3d )032, 834 NYS 2d 870 [lei Dept 2U07t II Fappiallo \! City of New Yorl( 5 AD3d 627, 774 NYS2d 773 ~2d Dept 2004"]; feu\'(' II) uP/)('(// dell.,-I NYS3d 702; 790 NYS2d 648 r_2004J). Additionally, "uncontradicted (ildS arc deel11ed cldmllIed" (Tortorello l! Lan:v M. Car/ill, 260 AD2d 20 1,688 NYS2d 64 I [1 SL Dept 19(91)- n-" sn [* 4] IN(i Bank v DiLuggio Index No.: 23750-10 Pg.4 Turning to the "first" counterclaim, BIrchwood's lien, which was fi led after the subject" mortgage \Vas recorded, IS extinguished upon foreclosure and Blrcll\vood is only entitled to surplus proct~cds, IrallY, wl1lch remain once the mortgage is satisfied (see, RPAPL ~ 1353; see, Sautter II Frick, 229 AD2d 345, 242 NYS2d 369, ot/d, 256 NY 535 [1931]; BallKers Trust Co. v Boart/ of Mal/agel'," 01' ParK I)(j() COIlt/OlllilliulII,81 NY2d 1033, supra; Washingto/l iv/ut. Home Loa/ls, 1/1e. I' .Jones, 27 AD3d 728, 814 NYS2d 1()() 1:2d Dept 20061; Dime Sal'. Balik I' Kakar, 203 AD2d SO, slipra) Therefore, SllKe Bircln,vood's counterclaim is suftkiently llldependent of the plamt11Ts foreclosure actiOn and ,IS 811"clnvood has not taken a position With respect to thiS motion, the "first" eountl:rclallll, \ovhlch IS deel11t~d a claim for slll"plus IllOlllCS, IS severed /"i·omthe foreclosure action (see, CPLR 3212 LeJllj: 5 I02; Robert Stigll'ood Orgauisatioll, I/lc. v DeVOll Co., 44 NY2d 922, 408 NYS2d 5 [1978]; Neighborhood NOlls. Servs. N. Y. City,II/{:. v Meltzer, 67 AD3d 872, Slipra, First U1liOIl Mortg. Corp. v Fem, 293 AD2d 4l)O, 740 NYS2d 42 [2d Dept 2002]). S1l11l1arly. Birchwood's first cross-chum for, among uther thll1gs, ,1 dec Iit ra lllry.l udgment determini ng the pri ority 0 f and ex 1'1guIslllng certain subseq lien tl y Ji led Iiells, as we II n as 8ircilwuod's second and tJmd cross-chums for money judgments are also severed (.'11..'(;" CPLR 3212 [e'l I: I]' 5102; First lInioll ll1ortg. On1)' II Feru, 298 AD2d 490, sUjJm). By its 1l10Vlllg papers, the plall1tifffurther established the default III answenng on the part oftilc n.::lnalnlng defendants, DILugglO, Eisenhardt, the Ne\-\!York State Department of Taxation and FInance and the Ul1lted States ofAmenca on beha1fofInternai Revenue Service, none of whom have served answers to the P!<-lilltifCscomplaint (see, CPLR 3215 [a], [b]). Accordingly, the defaults of these defendants a]"(:: fixed and dctcnnined. Since the plaint] ffhas been awarded partial summary judgment against Birchwood, and has establlshed a debu1r in answenng by the remaining defendants \o\'ho have not answerecL the plaintiff I:; entitled to an order apPoll1ting a referee to compute amounts due under the subject note and mortgage (see, RPAPL ~ 132 I; Ne(tjltborlwod H(ms. Servs. OIN. Y. City, Inc. Ii iHe/tzer, 67 AD3d 872, .')lIpra; Vermont Fed. Ballk v Chase, 226 AD2d 1034,64 J N'{S2d 440 [3d Dept 1906]; Bank (~fEast Asia, Ltd. v Smitb, 20\ AD2d 522, 607 NYS2d 431 [2d Dept 1994]). The referee apPolllted herein shall, withlll thirty (30) days of the sale o1'tl1c subject property, IIIe his/her report showing the disposition of the funds receIved on the sale and shall Include, 111 s:lld report. a ::;tatcmelll indicating a computatIOn of a surplus or defiCIency pursuant to RPAPL ~ 1355 I'll. If ,1ppllcablc, thc referee appointed herem shall comply with RPAPL ~ 1354 [3]. Thusc portIons of the lllstant Illotion whcrelll the plallltif"fseeks an order amending the C,lptlOI1by dcleting '"John Dnc #1" through ".John Doe #5" and "'.lane Doc #1" through "Jane Doc t,i5" as:l lielitlou::; defendant IS granted pursuant to CPLR 1024. By its submiSSions, the plalnti fTestabllshecl the basi::; I()cthi::; rellef.(sce, Ne(!;bhorllOod HOlts. SerJls. 01' N.}~ Ci(JI. Ille. Ii Meltzer, 67 /\D3d 872, SlIjJUI). A II I"uturc proceedings shall be captioned accordingly, i\ccrmlillg to the records m,lintalllec! by Court's computerized cbtabase. ,1 pre-sCI'cCIllllg I(xcclosurc seaiC'ment cOlltl'rence was held III Patchoguc on October 21, 20 I O. At the confercncc, thiS lllatter \VdS 1ll;lrked th,llit W,l'; Ilot eligIble tor an additional conference and, as n re:sult, it wa:') referred as an JAS else i\ccordi Ilg1y, there 11(1;; been compl iance with CPLR 3408 ,lnd no fun-her sen1ement cOlllcrcllce is required Proposed Order apPoll1ting re!'Crcc to compute pursuant to RPAPL ~ 1321 Signed as ll1oc!II'icciby [* 5] INCi Bank v DiLuggio Index No.: 23750-10 Pg.5 the Court. Thc plaintiff Clerk ofthls Court. i:) clJrcctccl __ ltS e!llry upon lht' Calendar 7 LJatcdJk6<9" Riverhead. . NY to :)erve a copy of tbis order wlth notice of ~r: ;:?of! FINAL DISPOSITION ! 1 , ON Ix DANIEL NON-I"I~" MY1~, J S C \ DISPOSITION

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.