Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v MacPherson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v MacPherson 2013 NY Slip Op 31991(U) August 19, 2013 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: 12-2945 Judge: Jerry Garguilo 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] INDEX NO. 12-2945 SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK I.A.S. PART 47 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: Hon. JEXRY GARGUILO Justice of the Supreme Court MOTION DATE 3/14/13 ADJ. DATE 5129113 Mot. Seq. #002 - MD _______________-________________________-----------------------X CADLEROCK JOINT VENTURE, L.P. VLOCK & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorney for Plaintiff 3 80 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, New York 10017 Plaintiff, - against - IRWIN POPKIN, ESQ. Attorney for Defendant 445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 25 MelvilIe, New York 11 747 DONALD MACPI-IERSON, Defendant. X LJpon the following papers numbered 1 to 2 1 read on this motion for summary judgment; Notice of Motion/ Order ; Answering Affidavits to Show Cause and supporting papers 1- 18 ; Notice of Cross Motion and supporting papers and supporting papers I9 ; Replying Affidavits and supporting papers 20-2 1 ; Other -; ( I it is, ) ORDERED that the motion by the plaintiff for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212, granting summary judgment in its favor and against the defendant, is denied. This action, brought on by notice of motion pursuant to CPLR 3213, is to recover the accelerated amounts allegedly due on a promissory note in the amount of $172,500.00, executed on behalf of the defendant in favor of First National Bank of Arizona, the plaintiff s predecessor in interest, on or about October 25, 2006. By order dated August 7, 20 12, the court denied the plaintiff s motion for summary judgment in lieu o f complaint (CPLR 3213), noting that resort to evidence extrinsic to the note was necessary in order to establish the plaintiffs entitlement to judgment. The court s statement of the facts and of the arguments presented relative to that motion follows. Pursuant to the terms of the note, which was executed in connection with the defendant s purchase of residential real property located in Southampton, New York and secured by a second mortgage on the property, the defendant was obligated to make monthlj~ payments of principal and interest in the amount of $1,958.88 beginning on Ileceiiiber 1. 2006, with all outstanding amounts due on November 1, 202 1. Section 4 o i [* 2] Cadlerock .loitit Ventul-e v . MacPherson Index N o . 11-7945 Page 2 the note provides, in part, as follows: 1. BORROWER S FAILURE TO PAY AS REQUESTED *** (B) Notice from Note Holder If I do not pay the full amount of each monthly payment on time, the Note Holder may send me a written notice telling me that if I do not pay the overdue amount by a certain date I will be in default. That date must be at least 10 days after the date on which the notice is mailed to me or, if not mailed, 10 days after the date on which it is delivered to me. (C) Default If I do not pay the overdue amount by the date stated in the notice described in (B) above I will be in default. If I am in default, the Note Holder may require me to pay immediately the full amount of principal which has not been paid and all the interest that I owe on that amount * * *. Section 5 provides as follows: 5. THIS NOTE SECURED BY A MORTGAGE In addition to the protections given to the Note Holder under this Note, a Mortgage, dated October 25, 2006, protects the Note Holder from possible losses which might result if I do not keep the promises which I make in this Note. That Mortgage describes how and undev what condifions I may he required to make immedirrte payment in,fuIIof all amounts that I OHV under this Note [emphasis added]. Section 1 defines Note Holder to include the lender and anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under the Note. The plaintiff alleges that, following the execution of the note, First National Bank of ,Irimna assigned the note to First National Bank of Nevada, which assigned the note l o Residential Funding Company, LLC, which assigned the note to LaSalle Bank, N.A., which assigned the note to the plaintiff in or about January 7. 2009. The various assignments ;?re reflected in allonges which the plaintiff claims are permanently affixed by staple to the note. The plaintiff also claims that it was assigned the second mortgage on or about April 8, 2009. According to the plaintiff, the defendant last made payment on the note on June 29. 2007.and has since defaulted by failing to timely pay principal, interest, and other [* 3] Cadlei-ock Joint Venture v . MacPherson Index No. 12-79-15 Page 3 charges as required. By letter dated August 12, 2009, New Falls Corporation-ostensibly the plaintiff s loan servicer-advised the defendant that he was in default and demanded that the defendant cure the default within 10 days after receipt of the letter. The defendant did not respond. By letter dated October 2, 2009, New Falls Corporation advised the defendant of the plaintiff s election to declare the entire outstanding principal balance and accrued interest immediately due and payable. Again, the defendant failed to make any pilyment. On or about November 30, 2009, the plaintiff commenced an action in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, to recover the amounts allegedly due. Although the plaintiff was initially able to secure a judgment against the defendant, it was determined by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that diversity jurisdiction was lacking, and the parties subsequently agreed to vacate the judgment and to dismiss the action without prejudice. This action followed. In determining that the note did not qualify for CPLR 32 13 treatment, the court observed that section 5 of the note expressly requires that reference be made to the mortgage to define the conditions which must be satisfied before the plaintiff may require immediate payment in full of all amounts due under the note. The court directed, therefore, that the action be converted to a conventional action and that the Paragraph 20 of the mortgage provides, in relevant part, as follows: 20. LENDER S RIGHTS IF BORROWER FAILS TO KEEP PROMISES AND AGREEMENTS If all of the conditions stated in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of this Paragraph 20 are satisfied, Lender may require that I pay immediately the entire amount then remaining unpaid under the Note and tinder this Mortgage. Lender may do this without making any fiiither demand for payment. This requirement shall be called lminediate Payment In Full. *** Lender may require Immediate Payment I n Full under this Paragraph 20 only it aII of the following conditions are satisfied: ( A ) I fail to keep any promise or agreement made in this Mortgage, including the promises to pa) when due the aiiio~ints that I owe to Lender tinder the Note and under this Mortgage; and (13) Lender gives to me, in the manner described in Paragraph 15 above [i.e , by certified mail], a that stat e s : 11 t ice o ( i ) The promise or agreement that I failed to keep; ( i i ) The action that I must take to correct that failure; (continued...) [* 4] Cadlerock J o i n t Venture v. MacPherson Inde\ N o 13-29-15 Page 4 moving and answering papers be deemed, respectively, the complaint and the answer. N o ~ v the action having been so converted and issue having effectively been joined, the plaintiff , again moves for summary judgment, this time pursuant to CPLR 3212.' _o. recover on a promissory note, the plaintiff is required to establish the existence of the note I and the defendant's failure to make payment in accordance with its terms ( e . g Raico v Concorde Funding Group, 60 AD3d 834, 875 NYS2d 25 1 [2009]). If the plaintiff establishes the required elements, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish by admissible evidence the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense (e.g. Quest Commercial v Rovner, 35 AD3d 576, 825 NYS2d 766 [2006]). CJpon review, the court finds an issue of fact, sufficient to defeat summary judgment, whether the plaintiff failed to coinply with a condition precedent permitting acceleration of the debt by neglecting to give notice in accordance with the terms of the subject note and mortgage. When a party sends a default notice pursuant to the provisions of a contract such as a note or mortgage, it must strictly comply with tho s e pro vi si on s . In the 1a.w of negotiable instruments or bills and notes there are certain conditions such as agreed upon notice provisions which require strict compliance before courts will act. This is particularly true where notice is determined by agreement rather than created by statute * * *. For the notice requirement is not merely some vestigial ceremonial remain, which evolved from medieval England to add luster to our legal system. It has a vital purpose. The acceleration clause of a promissory note is not unlike the sword of Damocles hanging over a borrower's head as a constant threat to at least financial imposition if not economic ruin. The declaration of a default which prompts acceleration ' ( . . .co ti t i n Lied) ( i i i ) A date by which I must correct the failure. That date must be at least 10 days from the date on which the notice is mailed to me; ( I \ ) That if.1 do not correct the failure by the date stated i n the notice, I will be in default and Lender may require Immediate Payment I n Full * * * [and] ( C ) I do not correct the failure stated in the notice from Lender by the date stated in that notice. ' Not\vithstanding that successive summary judgment motions by the same party are disfavored i n the absence of ne\vIy discovered evidence or sufficient cause (National Enters. Corp. v Dechert Price & Rhoady. 246 AD2d 481, 667 NYS2d 745 [1998]; La Freiziere v CrrpitalDist. Tramp. Auth., 105 AD2d 517, 481 NYS2d 367 [ 19841; Mmiize Micllrnzd Bank v Fisher, 85 AD2d 905, 447 NYS2d 186 [ 1981I), it is generally recognized that when a plaintiff-s CPLR 3213 motion is denied, it is without prejudice to a new summary judgment motion following joinder of issue (Scliuk v Barrows, 263 AD2d 565, 693 NYS2d 658 [ 19991, 94 NY2d 624, 709 NYS2d 148 [2000]; Tecliiiical Tape v Spray-Tuck, Inc., 146 AD2d 5 17, 536 NYS2d 457, Iv &missed 74 NY2d 79 I. 545 NYS3d 106 [ 19891). [* 5] Cadlerock Joint Ventiire v. MacPherson I n d e ~ o . 17-3945 N Page 5 I S therefore a drastic act. Thus, before the sword falls, it is the purpose of the default notice to give the borrower one final chance to avoid default and the harsh effect of acceleration It is an act of charity and fairness agreed upon by the parties. It therefore must be strictly construed for [sltability of contract obligations must not be undermined 17y jiidicicrl sympnthy ( G m f v Hope Bldg. Corp., 254 NY 1, 4 [emphasis added])-not only for stability of contract, but other reasons as well. (Dale v Industvial Ceramics, 150 Misc 2d 935, 936-937, 571 NYS2d 185, 186 [1991]). Here, the plaintiff acknowledges that both the August 12 and October 2 notices were sent by New Falls Corporation. As the defendant correctly notes, the obligations imposed by the note and the mortgage to provide such notice fall upon the Note Holder or the Lender. The note defines Note Holder to include the Lender, i.e., First National Bank of Arizona, and anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under the Note -including, presumably, the plaintiff. The mortgage identifies the Lender as First National Bank of Arizona and, implicitly, its successors and assigns (see irlso Real Property Law fj 254 [2]). The plaintiff does not dispute that New Falls was neither the Note Holder nor the Lender, but claims that New Falls was its servicing agent. There is nothing in the record, howeiw, to indicate that the defendant had ever been notified that New Falls was authorized to act on the plaintiff-s behalf (see Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v Korngold, 162 Misc 2d 669,618 NYS2d 744 [ 19941). Certainly, the representation in the notices themselves that New Falls was the plaintiff-s servicer does not avail the plaintiff, as the declarations of an agent cannot be used to prove an agency relationship (Lexow & Jenkins v Hertz Commercial Leasing Corp., 122 AD2d 25, 504 NYS2d 192 [ 19861). The plaintiffs reference to the deposition testimony of Edward Yasher, the plaintiff-s account officer, is likewise unavailing; while that testimony does make reference to a letter purporting to advise the defendant as to the plaintiffs purchase of the defendant s mortgage and to identify New Falls as the plaintiffs servicer, the plaintiff offers no proof if, when, by or even to whom the letter was sent. Consequently, as it appears that the giving of notice in compliance with paragraph 20 of the mortgage was a condition precedent to acceleration of the amounts due under the note, and as it does not appear that the plaintiff ever advised the defendant that New Falls was authorized to act as its agent. the plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment (see Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v Koriigoll, siipra; set? also Siege1 v Kentucky Fried Chicken of Long Is., 67 NY2d 792, 501 NYS2d 3 17 [ 19861; HSBC Mtge. Corp. (USA) v Erneste, 22 Misc 3d 1 1 15[A], 880 NYS2d 224 [2009]). ___ FINAL DISPOSITION X NON-FINAL 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.
