JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Porges

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Porges 2015 NY Slip Op 32287(U) December 2, 2015 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 506742/13 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman 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. [*FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/04/2015 02:16 PM 1] INDEX NO. 506742/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/04/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: PART 16 ------------------------------------------x JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, Decision and order - against - Index No. 506742/13 ELOZER PORGES, BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE BOMMER BUILDING CONDOMINIUM, NYC DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, REBECCA DOE, a woman who refused to identify her last name; ELENA CAIRE, JOSE PENA, Defendants, December 2, 2015 ------------------------------------------x PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN The plaintiff has moved seeking a judgement of foreclosure and sale. The defendants have opposed the plaintiff's motion seeking a judgement and foreclosure and sale on various grounds. Papers were submitted by both parties and after reviewing the arguments of all parties this court now makes the following determination. This the foreclosure action commenced on October 31, plaintiff, filed an action located at 263 Classon Avenue, order of referee reference submitted and a summary report to foreclose Unit SE, the real property New York. An granted and the Brooklyn, judgement were detailing on 2013 when amount owed. motion seeking a judgement of foreclosure and sale followed. This The [* 2] opposition raises v arious issues namely, that they do not owe the amount c laimed, the interest has not been verified , of may have limitations expired and that he the statute does not reca ll signing a contract with the plaintiff. Conclusions of Law It is well rates of settled that terms of a mortgage that contain interest above the statutory rates of usury are not usurious when only app licable after default or maturity (Hicki v. Choice Capital Corp., 264 AD2d 710 , 694 NYS 2d 750 [2d Dept., 1999), see, also, Money Due After Default or Maturity, by Je ffrey Moerdler New Yo rk Law Jou rnal, Of course, September 25, 2000}. this rule permitting interest above the statutory rate of usury is only applicable where there will be no penalties for payment Dept . , (Corvetti 19 9 8 ] } . National Bank, v. As Hudson, 252 AD2d 787, t he court Suffolk County 197 3 ] t hi s 676 NYS2d 263 explained in Heelan v. 73 Misc2d 1004, 343 NYS2d rationale t imely 417 [3 rd Security [District Court "rests upon a good fait h provision in t he agreement devoid of intent to evade t he usury laws" and that "while permitting the aforementioned charges might lead in some cases to abuses and e xcess ive demands by creditor banks, s ti ll, absen t t he intent to e vade t ransaction will not be deemed usuriousn. 2 the usury laws , the In this case the note [* 3] clearly spells out that an increase in the interest rate only applies upon a default and that an additional two percent will be added. First , this rate does not exceed the statutory rate of 16% and in any event is clearly defined within the terms of the cont racts signed by the defendant . Turning t o the issue the defendant claims he never signed a contract with the plaintiff, while that may be true , true that a valid assignment took place. it is also It is well settled that a mortgag e may not be foreclosed unless the plaintiff maintains a legal or equitable inter est in the mortgage (Wells Fargo Bank N . A., v. Marchione, 69 AD3d 204, 887 NYS2d 615 [2d Dept., 2 009 ] ). Thus, for a plaintiff equitable intere st , was b oth ( 2) to establish standing, it must be demonstrated that and hence an the plaintiff (1 ) the holder or assignee o f the subject mortgage and the h o lder or assignee of the underlying note, either by physical delivery or execution of a written assignment prior to the commencement of the action with the filing of the complaint (see, U.S. Bank, (2d Dept . , commenced N.A . v. 2009]). the Col l ymore, Thus , plaintiff 68 AD3d 752, clearly at undisputedly the time maintained 89 0 NYS2d 578 the action was the r ight to bring the ac ti on. Indeed, as noted in Lincoln Savings Bank, FSB v. 760, Wynn, 7 AD3d 776 NYS2d 908 [ 2d Dept., 2004 ] , an assignment permits the as signee to continue the foreclosure even 3 [* 4] without a ny formal substitution. Furthermore, the action was commenced within t he applicable period and a ref ere e was appointed by the court to determine the amount owed. raised at the Any issues concerning that amoun t should have b een appropriate time. The failure to do so and to raise that issue now is a n insufficient basis upon which to deny the plaintiff's motion. Moreover, the defendant has not presented any evidence in any manner c hallenging the conclusions of the referee or explaining the manner in which they are not a ccurate. conclusory These objections, therefore, are insuffici e nt. Therefore , based on the foregoing, the plaintiff's motion seeking judgement of for ec losur e and sale is granted. So ordered. ENTER: DATED: December 2 , 2015 Brooklyn N.Y. Hon. Leon Ruchelsman JSC -r _ Sv..1-o~r~ NANC'i T SUNSH\NE . · 4 Clerk .

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.