Chase Home Fin. LLC v Shirazi

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Chase Home Fin. LLC v Shirazi 2013 NY Slip Op 32314(U) September 16, 2013 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: 15961-10 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] INDEX NO. 15961- 10 SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK I.A.S. PART 33 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: Hon. THOMAS F. WHELAN Justice of the Supreme Court Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 7/25/13 ADJ. DATES 916113 Mot. Seq. # 00 1- MG; Order Signed Case Disp; Y N-x- CULLEN & DYKMAN, LLP Attys. For Plaintiff 100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd. Garden City, NY 11530 -againstASIF SHIRAZI, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA, ET ALS, ERNEST E. RANALLI, ESQ. Atty. For Defendant Shirazi 742 Veterans memorial Hwy. Hauppauge, NY 11788 Upon the following papers numbered 1 to 1 1 read on this motion for accelerated iudgments, deletion andor substitution of parties and caption amendments to reflect same;, and the appointment of a referee to compute ;Notice of MotiodOrder to Show Cause and supporting papers 1 - 4 ; Notice of Cross Motion and supporting papers ; Answering Affidavits and supporting papers 5-7 ; Replying Affidavits and supporting papers 8-9 ; ( ;( Other 10 (memorandum); 11 (memorandum) metien, it is ORDERED that this motion (#002) by the plaintiff for accelerated judgments against the defendants, substitution and deletion of parties, the appointment of a referee to compute and other incidental relief is considered under CPLR 3212, 3215, 1024 and RPAPL 1321 and is granted. The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage given by defendant Shirazi on June 6,2007 to secure a note executed on that same date in favor of the plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest by merger. The plaintiff alleges that defendant Shirazi defaulted in payment of amounts due under the terms of the note and mortgage obligation on December 1, 2008. Following service of the summons and complaint, issue was joined by service of an answer by the mortgagor defendant Shirazi. Said answer contained twelve affirmative defenses, none of which challenge the standing of the plaintiff, [* 2] Chase Home Financing, LL C v Shirazi Index No, 15961/2010 Page 2 who is the successor by merger to the original lender. The last four affirmative defenses are, however, denominated as counterclaims. The plaintiff now moves for an order: (1) awarding it summary judgment against the answering defendant together with a dismissal of the affirmative defenses and counterclaims asserted against the plaintiff and, in effect, fixing the defaults in answering of those served with process who failed to answer such process; (2) identifying Dabassum Asif as John Doe #1 under CPLR 1024 and deleting as party defendants the remaining unknown defendants named in the caption together with a caption amendment to reflect these changes; and (3) appointing a referee to compute amounts due under the subject mortgage. Defendant Shirazi contests the plaintiffs motion by the submission of opposing papers. The challenges advanced therein are premised solely upon purported defects in the plaintiffs compliance with the notice requirements imposed by RPAPL $0 1303 and 1304. All other of the affirmative defenses set forth in the answer have been abandoned as defenses to the plaintiffs demands for summary judgment on its complaint. The opposing papers also contain assertions that the plaintiffs proof on its demand for a dismissal of the defendant Shirazi's four counterclaims is insufficient, thereby warranting a denial of the plaintiffs motion in its entirety. In each of his counterclaims, defendant Shirazi demands the recovery of money damages under the following theories: 1) GBL $349 violations; 2) misrepresentations that induced Shirazi into the subject mortgage loan that was doomed to failure due to Shirazi's inability to pay; 3) unconscionable conduct in structuring the subject loan; and 4) the plaintiffs failure to investigate the economic status of the defendant prior to making the subject unaffordable mortgage loan. For the reasons stated below, the motion is considered under CPLR 3215,3212 and RPAPL $ 1321 and is granted. Entitlement to a judgment of foreclosure may be established, as a matter of law, where the plaintiff produces both the mortgage and unpaid note, together with evidence of the mortgagor's default, thereby shifting the burden to the mortgagor to demonstrate, through both competent and admissible evidence, any defense which could raise a question of fact (see Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v Beckerman, 105 AD3d 895,964 NYS2d 548 [2d Dept 20131; Solomon v Burden, 104 AD3d 839,961 NYS2d 535 [2dDept 20131; USBankNatl.Ass'n vDenaro, 98 AD3d 964,950NYS2d 581 [2d Dept 20121; Baron ASSOC., v Garcia Group Enter., 96 AD3d 793,946 NYS2d 61 1 [2d Dept 20121; Citibank, N.A. LLC v Van Brunt Prop., LLC, 95 AD3d 1158,945 NYS2d 330 [2d Dept 20121; HSBC Bank v Shwartz, 88 AD3d 961,931 NYS2d 528 [2d Dept 201 11; US Bank N.A. v Euddy, 79 AD3d 1022, 1022,914 NYS2d 901 [2010]; Zanfini v Chandler, 79 AD3d 1031,912 NYS2d 91 1 [2d Dept 20101). Here, the moving papers established the plaintiffs entitlement to summary judgment on its complaint against the answering defendant as such papers included copies of the mortgage, the unpaid note executed by Shirazi on June 6, 2007, together with due evidence of a default under the terms thereof secured by the mortgage (see CPLR 3212; RPAPL 0 1321; Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v Beckerman, 105 AD3d 895, supra; Solomon v Burden, 104 AD3d 839, supra; US Bank Natl. Ass'n v Denaro, 98 AD3d 964, supra; Baron ASSOC., LLC v Garcia Group Enter., 96 AD3d 793, supra). The moving papers further established, prima facie, that the affirmative defenses and counterclaims [* 3] Chase Home Financing, LL C v Shirazi Index No, 15961/2010 Page 3 asserted in the answer are without merit (see generally Jo-Ann Homes v Dworetz, 25 NY2d 112,302 NYS2d 799 [1969]; Graf v Hope Bldg. Corp., 254 NY 1, 4-5, 171 NE 884 [1930]; Patterson v Somerset Inv. Corp.,96 AD3d 817,946 NYS2d 217 [2d Dept 20121; see also Emigrant Mtge. Co. v Fitzpatrick, 95 AD3d 1169,945 NYS2d 697 [2d Dept 20121 [claimed violations o General Business f Law j 349 andor engagement in deceptive business practices do not generally give rise to claims against lender]; Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Meyers, -AD3d -, 966 NYS2d 108 [2d Dept 20131; Weffs Fargo Bank, N.A. v Van Dyke, 101 AD3d 638, 958 NYS2d 331 [lst Dept 20121; Key Intern. Mfg. Inc. vStillman, 103 AD2d 475,480 NYS2d 528 [2d Dept 19841; JPMorgan Chase BankNatl. Assn. vIfardo,36 Misc3d 359,940 NYS2d 829 [Sup. Ct. Suffolk County 20121 voreclosingplaintiff has no obligation 10 modifi loan];Long Is. Sav. Bank v Denkensohn, 222 AD2d 659,635 NYS2d 683 [2d Dept 19951; G.G.F. Dev. Corp. v Andreadis, 251 AD2d 624, 676 NYS2d 488 [2d Dept 19981; (champerty not a defnse)];see also Limpar Realty Corp. v Uswiss Realty Holding, Inc., 112 AD2d LLC v Garcia Group Enter., 96 AD3d 793, 834, 492 NYS2d 754 [lst Dept 19851; Baron ASSOC., supra; [unconscionability not a defense];see also Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v Fitzpatrick, 95 AD3d 1169, supra;Argent Mtge. Co., LLC v Mentesana, 79 AD3d 1079,915 NYS2d 591 [2d Dept 20101; unaffordability of loan will not support damages claim against lender and is not a defense to foreclosure action);see also Patterson vSomerset Inv. Corp.,96 AD3d 8 17, supra; ( Thefact that the plaintiffsought and received a loan [that] he [allegedly] could not afford does not mean that he can now proceed against the party that made his [purported] mistake possible ); see also Rakylar v WashingtonMut. Bank, 5 1 AD3d 995,858 NYS2d 759 [2d Dept 20081; Standard Fed. Bank v Healy, 7 AD3d 610,777 NYS2d 499 [2d Dept 20041). It was thus incumbent upon the answering defendant to submit proof sufficient to raise a genuine question of fact rebutting the plaintiffs prima facie showing or in support of the affirmative defenses asserted in his answer or otherwise available to him (see FfagstarBank v Beffafiore,94 AD3d 1044, 943 NYS2d 551 [2d Dept 20121; Grogg Assocs. v South Rd. Assocs., 74 AD3d 1021 907 NYS2d 22 [2d Dept 20101; WeffsFargo Bank v Karla, 71 AD3d 1006, 896 NYS2d 681 [2d Dept 20101; Washington Mut., Bank v O Connor, 63 AD3d 832,880 NYS2d 696 [2d Dept 20091; J.P. Morgan Chase Bartk, NA v Agneffo,62 AD3d 662, 878 NYS2d 397 [2d Dept 20091; Aames Funding Corp. v Houston, 44 AD3d 692, 843 NYS2d 660 [2d Dept 20071). Notably, self-serving and conclusory allegations do not raise issues of fact and do not require plaintiff to respond to alleged affirmative defenses which are based on such allegations (see Charter One Bank, FSB v Leone, 45 AD3d 958, 845 NYS2d 513 [3d Dept 20071; Rosen Auto Leasing, Inc. v Jacobs, 9 AD3d 798,780 NYS2d 438 [3d Dept 20041). Where a defendant fails to oppose some or all matters advanced on a motion for summary judgment, the facts as alleged in the movant s papers may be deemed admitted as there is, in effect, a concession that no question of fact exists (see Kuehne & Nagel, Inc. vBaiden, 36 NY2d 539, 369NYS2d 667 [1975]; see alsoMadelineD Anthony Enter., Inc. vSokolowsky, 101 AD3d 606,957 NYS2d 88 [lst Dept 20121; ArgentMtge. Co., LLCvMentesana, 79 AD3d 1079,915NYS2d 591[2d Dept 20 lo]). A review of the opposing papers submitted by defendant Shirazi reveals that the same do not contain assertions of any of the affirmative defenses set forth in its answer, except those asserting non compliance with the mandates of RPAPL 0 1303 and 0 1304. The plaintiffs prima facie showing of its entitlement to dismissal of the affirmative defenses abandoned by defendant Shirazi was not uncontroverted and all such defenses are dismissed. Left for consideration are the remaining affirmative [* 4] Chase Home Financing, LL C v Shirazi Index No, 15961/ 2010 Page 4 defenses of the answer which defendant Shirazi did assert as a basis for a denial of the plaintiffs motion, namely, failures to comply with RPAPL Q 1303 and Q 1304 and the purported failure on the part of the plaintiff to establish to the legal insufficiency of defendant Shirazi s counterclaims, In his opposing affidavit, defendant Shirazi does not deny receipt of either the RPAPL !j1303 notice or the RPAPL Q 1304 notice. With respect to the 1303 notice, Shirazi admits receiving it with service of the summons and complaint. His challenge thereto is premised upon its purported noncompliance type mandated by that statute and the failure of the server of the summons and complaint to allege service of the notice in his affidavit of service. With respect to the 1304 notice, Shirazi states that I do not recall receiving a copy of these notices as the plaintiff alleges were sent but proof thereof is allegedly lacking (see 24-28). These averments are, however, insufficient to raise any genuine question of fact which warrant denial of the plaintiffs motion on its pleaded claim for foreclosure and sale. The two asserted defects in RPAPL Q 1303 are unsupported by defendant Shirazi s evidentiary submissions on his part and are factually refuted by the proof adduced by the plaintiff in its reply papers. Equally lacking in merit are Shirazi s challenges to the plaintiffs compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 0 1304 as the record contains due proof of the required mailings under the RPAPL Q 1304 notice (see US Bank Natl. Ass n v Weinman, 2013 WL 3172455 [Sup Ct. Suffolk County 20131). Equally unavailing are defendant Shirazi s claims that the plaintiff s proof was insufficient to establish any entitlement to a dismissal of the four counterclaims asserted in Shirazi s answer. The plaintiffs prima facie showing for an award of summaryjudgment dismissing these counterclaims was thus not controverted. The court, therefore, finds that the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on its complaint and dismissing the affirmative defenses and counterclaims set forth in the answer of the mortgagor defendant Those portions of this motion wherein the plaintiff seeks such relief are granted. Those portions of the instant motion wherein the plaintiff seeks an order identifying Dabassum Asif as a defendant in the place of John Doe #1 and dropping as party defendants the remaining unknown defendants listed in the caption and an amendment of the caption to reflect same are granted. All future proceedings shall be captioned accordingly. The moving papers further established the default in answering on the part of the newly identified defendant and the others named in the caption, none of whom served answers to the plaintiffs complaint. Accordingly, the defaults of all such defendants are hereby fixed and determined. Since the plaintiff has been awarded summary judgment against the sole answering defendant and has established a default in answering by the remaining defendants, the plaintiff is entitled to an order appointing a referee to compute amounts due under the subject note and mortgage (see RPAPL Q 1321;Bank ofEast Asia, Ltd. v Smith, 201 AD2d 522,607 NYS2d 431 [2d Dept 19941; Vermont Fed. Bank v Chase, 226 AD2d 1034,641 NYS2d 440 [3d Dept 19961; LaSalle Bank, NA v Pace, 31 Misc3d 627,919 NYS2d 794 [Sup. Ct. Suffolk County 201 11, u f d , 100 AD3d 970,955 NYS2d 161 [2d Dept 20121). The record reflects that conferences of the type mandated by the Laws of 2008, Ch. 472 0 3-a as amended by the Laws of 2009 Ch. 507 Q 10 or by CPLR 3408 were previously conducted on three occasions by personnel in the specialized mortgage foreclosure part of this court and that no further [* 5] Chase Home Financing, LL C v Shirazi IndexNo, 15961,/2010 Page 5 conferences are required under any statute, law or rule. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to the issuance of an order of reference due to the accelerated judgments granted to the plaintiff on this motion. . Order appoint a referee to compute, as modified by the court, is signed simultaneously herewith. A DATED:

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.