Wells Fargo Delaware Trust Co N.A. v Pugliese

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Wells Fargo Delaware Trust Co N.A. v Pugliese 2014 NY Slip Op 31527(U) June 12, 2014 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: 28129-12 Judge: Arthur G. Pitts 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] s1101n FORM OIWER INDEX NO.: SUPREME COURT- STATE OF NEW YORK IAS PART 43 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: 28129-12 copy Hon. ARTHUR G. PITTS Justice of the Supreme Court WELLS FARGO DELAWARE TRUST COMPANY N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR VERICREST OPPORTUNITY LOAN TRUST 2011-NPLl Plaintiff, -againstROBERTS. PUGLIESE, KAREN PUGLIESE, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK STA TE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, JOHN T. MATHER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF PORT JEFFERSON JNC., and "JOHN DOE #1" through "JOHN DOE #10", the last 10 names being fictitious and unknown to the Plaintiff, the persons or parties intended being the persons or parties, if any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the mortgaged premises described in the verified complaint, MOTION DATE: 7-15-13 ADJ.DATE: Mot. Seq.# 001-MG COHN &ROTH Attorneys for Plaintiff 100 E. Old Country Road Mineola, N. Y. 11501 F.J. ROMANO & ASSOCIATES P.C. Attorneys for Defendants Robert S. Pugliese Karen Pugliese 51 East Main Street Smithtown, N. Y. 11787 Defendants. Upon the fo llowing papers numbered 1 to 15 read on this motion for summary judgment; Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause and supporting papers I - 15 ; Notice of Cross Motion and supporting papers _ _ ; Answering Affidavits and supporting papers ; Replying Affidavits and supporting papers ; Other ; (and 11fte1 heat i11g etm11~el i11 ~ uppott a11d opposed to the 1uotio11) it is, ORDERED that this unopposed motion by the plaintiff for, inter alia, an order: (1) pursuant to CPLR 32 12 awarding summary judgment in its favor and against the defendants Robert S. Pugliese and Karen Pugliese, striking their answer and dismissing the affirmative defenses set forth therein; (2) pursuant to CPLR 32 15 fixing the defaults of the non-answering defendants; (3) pursuant to RP APL § 132 1 appointing a referee to (a) compute amounts due under the subj ect mortgage; and (b) examine and report whether the subj ect premises should be sold in one parcel or multiple parcels; and (4) amending the caption is granted; and it is ORDERED that the plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this order amending the caption upon the Calendar Clerk of thi s Court; and it is further [* 2] Wells Fargo Delaware Trust Company, N.A. v Pugliese, et. al. Index No.: 28129-12 Pg. 2 ORDERED that the plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this Order with notice of entry upon all parties who have appeared herein and not waived further notice pursuant to CPLR 2103(b )(1 ), (2) or (3) within thirty (30) days of the date herein, and to promptly file the affidavits of service with the Clerk of the Court. This is an action to foreclose a mortgage on residential real property known as 41 Adamson Street, Selden, Nevv York 11784. On June 5, 2008, the defendants Robert Pugliese and Karen Pugliese (the defendant mortgagors) executed a fixed-rate note in favor of CitiMortgage, Inc. (the lender) in the principal sum of $508,500.00. To secure said note, the defendant mortgagors gave the lender a mortgage also dated June 5, 2008 on the property. By way of a series of endorsed allonges affixed to the note and a series of assignments, the note and the mortgage were transferred to the plaintiff, Wells Fargo Delaware Trust Company, N.A. as Trustee for Veriquest Opportunity Loan Trust 2011-NPLl. The defendant mortgagors allegedly defaulted on the note and mortgage by failing to make the monthly payment of principal and interest due on or about January 1, 2010, and each month thereafter. After the defendant mortgagors allegedly failed to cure their default, the plaintiff commenced the instant action by the filing of a lis pendens, summons and verified complaint on September 12, 2012. Issue was joined by the interposition of the defendant mortgagors' joint answer dated November 6, 2012. By their answer, the defendant mortgagors admit some of the allegations set forth in the complaint, and generally deny other allegations therein. The defendant mortgagors also assert eleven affirmative defenses, alleging, among other things, the following: the failure to state a cause of action, provide disclosures (alleged as a second and a fifth affirmative defense), properly credit payments and negotiate in good faith; predatory lending; deceptive business practices; improperly refusing a loan modification; lack of standing and capacity to sue; and the alleged entitlement to a mandatory settlement conference. The remaining defendants have neither answered nor appeared in this action. According to the records maintained by the court's computerized database, a series of settlement conferences were held before the specialized foreclosure conference part on November 21, 2012 as well as on January 22 and February 19, 2013. A representative of the plaintiff attended and participated in all settlement conferences. At the last conference, this action was marked to indicate that the parties could not reach an agreement to modify the loan or otherwise settle this action. Accordingly, the conference requirements imposed by CPLR 3408 have been satisfied; no further conference is required under any statute, law or rule. The plaintiff now moves for, inter alia, an order: (1) pursuant to CPLR 3212 awarding summary judgment in its favor and against the defendant mortgagors, striking their answer and dismissing the affirmative ddenses therein; (2) pursuant to CPLR 3215 fixing the defaults of the non-answering defendants; (3) pursuant to RP A PI~ 1321 appointing a referee to (a) compute amounts due under the subject mortgage; and (b) examine and report whether the subject premises should be sold in one parcel or multiple parcels; and (4) amending the caption. No opposition has been filed in response to this motion. A plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action establishes a prima facie case for summary judgment by submission of the mortgage, the note, bond or obligation, and evidence of default (see, Valley Natl. Bank v Deutsch, 88 AD3d 691, 930 NYS2d 4 77 [2d Dept 2011]; Wells Fargo Bank v Das Karla, 71 AD3d 1006, 896 NYS2d 681 [2d Dept 201 OJ; Washington Mut. Bank, F.A. vO'Connor, 63 AD3d 832, 880 NYS2d 696 [2d Dept [* 3] Wells Fargo Delaware Trust Company, N.A. v Pugliese. et. al. Index No.: 28129-12 Pg. 3 2009]). The burden then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate "the existence of a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense to the action, such as waiver, estoppel, bad faith, fraud, or oppressive or unconscionable conduct on the part of the plaintiff' (Capstone Bus. Credit, LLC v Imperia Family Realty, LLC, 70 AD3d 882, 883. 895 NYS2d 199 [2d Dept 201 O], quoting Mahopac Natl. Bank v Baisley, 244 AD2d 466, 467, 644 NYS2d 345 [2d Dept 1997]). By its submissions, the plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the complaint (see, CPLR 3212; RP APL§ 1321; Waclwvia Bank, N.A. v Carcano, 106 AD3d 724, 965 NYS2d 516 l2d Dept 2013]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Denaro, 98 AD3d 964, 950 NYS2d 581 [2d Dept 2012]; Capital One, N.A. v Knollwood Props. II, LLC, 98 AD3d 707, 950 NYS2d 482 [2d Dept 2012]). In the instant case, the plaintiff produced the note with an allonge, the mortgage, the assignment and evidence of nonpayment (see, Federal Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v Karastathis, 23 7 AD2d 558, 655 NYS2d 631 [2d Dept 1997]; First Trust Natl. Assn. v Meisels, 234 AD2d 414, 651 NYS2d 121 [2d Dept 1996]). The plaintiff also submitted, inter alia, two affidavits by its representatives whereby it is alleged that the note and mortgage were transferred to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of this action, and that its custodian has safeguarded those original documents in a secure location (see, Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Whalen, 107 AD3d 931, 969 NYS2d 82 [2d Dept 2013]; see also. Chase Home Fin., LLCv Miciotta, 101AD3d1307, 956 NYS2d 271 [3d Dept 2012]; GRP Loan, LLC v Taylor, 95 AD3d 1172, 945 NYS2d 336 [2d Dept 2012]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Avila, 2013 NY Misc LEXIS 4521, 2013 WL 5606741, 2013 NY Slip Op 32412 [U] [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2013]). Thus, the plaintiff demonstrated its prima facie burden as to the merits of this foreclosure action and as to its standing. Moreover, the plaintiff submitted sufficient proof to establish, prima facie, that the remaining affirmative defenses set forth in the defendant mortgagors' answer are subject to dismissal due to their unmeritorious nature (see, Becher v Feller, 64 AD3d 672, 884 NYS2d 83 [2d Dept 2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Perez, 41 AD3d 590, 837 NYS2d 877 [2d Dept 2007]; Coppa v Fabozzi, 5 AD3d 718, 773 NYS2d 604 [2d Dept 2004] [unsupported affirmative defenses are lacking in merit]; see also, Bank ofAmerica v Lucido, 2014 NY App Div LEXIS 942. 2014 WL 552996, 2014 NY Slip Op 00956 [2d Dept, Feb. 13, 2014] [plaintiffs refusal to consider a reduction in principal does not establish a failure to negotiate in good faith]; Washington Mut. Bank vSchenk, 112 AD3d 615, 975 NYS2d 902 [2d Dept 2013]; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v /lardo, 36 Misc 3d 359, 940 NYS2d 829 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2012] [plaintiff not obligated to accept a tender ofless than full repayment as demanded]; Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Scura, 102 AD3d 714, 961 NYS2d 185 [2d Dept 2013]; Scarano v Scarano, 63 AD3d 716, 880 NYS2d 682 [2d Dept 2009] [process server's sworn affidavit of service is prima facie evidence of proper service]; Shufelt v Bulfamante, 92 AD3d 936, 940 NYS2d 108 [2d Dept 2012]; Long ls. Sav. Bank ofCentereach, F.S.B. v Denkensohn, 222 AD2d 659, 635 NYS2d 683 [2d Dept 1995] [dispute as to amount owed by the mortgagor is not a defense to a foreclosure action] ;FGH Realty Credit Corp. v VRD Realty Corp.. 231 AD2d 489, 647 NYS2d 229 [2d Dept 1996] [no valid defense or claim of estoppel where mortgage provision bars oral modification]; HSBC Bank USA v Picarelli, 36 Misc3d 1218 [A], 959 NYS2d 89 !Sup Ct, Queens County 2012] [TILA requirements satisfied where the lender provided the required information and forms to the obligor at the closing]). As the plaintiff duly demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the burden of proof shifted to the defendant mortgagors (see, HSBC Bank USA v Merrill, 37 AD3d 899, 830 NYS2d 598 [3d Dept [* 4] Wells Fargo Delaware Trust Company, N.A. v Pug! iese, et. al. Index No.: 28129-12 Pg. 4 2007]). Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the defendant mortgagors to produce evidentiary proofin admissible form sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense to the action (see , Baron Assoc., LLC v Garcia Group Enters., Inc., 96 AD3d 793, 946 NYS2d 611 [2d Dept 2012]; Washington Mut. Bank v Valencia , 92 AD3d 774, 939 NYS2d 73 [2d Dept 2012]). Self-serving and conclusory allegations do not raise issues of fact, and do not require the 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 [2d Dept 2007]; Rosen Auto Leasing, Inc. v Jacobs, 9 AD3d 798, 780 NYS2d 438 [3d Dept 2004]). In instances where a defendant fails to oppose a motion for summary judgment, the facts, as alleged in the moving papers, may be deemed admitted and there is, in effect, a concession that no question of fact exists (see, Kuehne & Nagel v Raiden, 36 NY2d 539, 369 NYS2d 667 [ 1975]; see also, Madeline D'Anthony Enters., Inc. vSokolowsky, 101AD3d606, 957NYS2d 88 [l st Dept 20I2];Argent Mtge. Co., LLC v Mentesana, 79 AD3d 1079, 915 NYS2d 591 [2d Dept 2010]). Additionally, "uncontradicted facts are deemed admitted" ( Tortorello v Carlin, 260 AD2d 20 l , 206, 688 NYS2d 64 [l st Dept 1999] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). T he defendant mortgagors' answer is insufficient, as a matter of law, to defeat the plaintiffs unopposed motion (see , F/agstar Bank v Bellafiore, 94 AD3d 1044, 943 N YS2d 55 l [2d Dept 2012]; Argent Mtge. Co., LLC v Mentesana, 79 AD3d l 079, supra). In this case, the affirmative defenses asserted by the defendant mortgagors are factually unsupported and without apparent merit (see, Becher v Feller, 64 AD3d 672, supra). In any event, the failure by the defendant mortgagors to raise and/or assert each of their pleaded defenses in opposition to the plaintiff' s motion warrants the dismissal of the same as abandoned under the case authorities cited above (see, Kuehne & Nagel v Raiden , 36 NY2d 539, supra; see also, Madeline D'Anthony Enters., Inc. v Sokolowsky, 10 I AD3d 606, supra). Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the defendant mortgagors failed to rebut the plaintiff's prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment requested by it (see, Flagstar Bank v Bellafiore, 94 AD3d I 044, supra; Argent Mtge. Co., LLC v Mentesana, 79 AD3d 1079, supra; Rossrock Fund II, L.P. v Commack Inv. Group, Inc. , 78 AD3d 920, 9 12 NYS2d 71 (2d Dept 2010); see generally, Hermitage Ins. Co. v Trance Nile Club, Inc. , 40 AD3d l 032, 834 NYS2d 870 (2d Dept 2007]). The plaintiff, therefore, is awarded summary judgment in its favor against the defendant mortgagors (see, Federal Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v Karastathis, 23 7 AD2d 558, supra; see generally, Zuckerman v City ofNew York, 49 NY2d 55 7, 427 NYS2d 595 f19801) . Accordingly, the defendant mortgagors' answer is stricken, and the affirmativ e defenses set forth therein are dismissed . The branch of the instant motion wherein the plaintiff seeks an order pursuant to CPLR l 024 amending the capti on by excising the fictitious named defendants, John Doe # 1 through John Doe # I 0, is granted (see , PHH Mtge. Corp. v Davis, 111 AD3d 1110, 975 NYS2d 480 [3d Dept 201 3]; Flagstar Bank v Bellafiore, 94 AD3d I 044, supra; Neighborhood Ho us. Servs. ofNY. City, Inc. v Meltzer, 67 AD3d 872, 889 NYS2d 627 [2d Dept 2009] ). By its moving papers, the plaintiff further established the default in answering on the part of the defendants People of the State of New York, N ew York State Department of Taxation and Finance and John T. [* 5] Wells Fargo Delaware Trust Company, N.A. v Pugliese, et. al. Index No .: 28129-12 Pg. 5 Mather Memorial Hospital of Port Jefferson, Inc. (see, RP APL § 1321; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Roldan, 80 AD3d 566, 914 NYS2d 64 7 [2d Dept 2011 ]). Accordingly, the defaults of the above-noted defendants are fixed and determined. Since the plaintiff has been awarded summary judgment against the defendant mortgagors, and has established the default in answering by all of the non-answering defendants, the plaintiff is entitled to an order appointing a referee to compute amounts due under the subject note and mortgage (see, RP APL§ 1321; Ocwen Fed. Bank FSB v Miller, 18 AD3d 527, 794 NYS2d 650 [2d Dept 2005]; Vermont Fed. Bank v Chase, 226 AD2d 1034, 641 NYS2d 440 [3d Dept 1996]; Bank of E. Asia v Smith, 201 AD2d 522, 607 NYS2d 431 [2d Dept 1994]). Accordingly, this motion for, inter alia, summary judgment and an order of reference is granted. The proposed long form order appointing a referee to compute pursuant to RP APL§ 1321, as modified by the Court, has been signed concurrently herewith. ,. ---""'t cc~ Dated : June 12. 2014 ---~. J.S .C. 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.