JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Re

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Re 2017 NY Slip Op 31138(U) May 23, 2017 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 26476/13 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] MEMO DECISION & ORDER COPY INDEX No. 26476113 SUPREME COURT- STATE OF NEW YORK IAS PART 33 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: Hon. THOMAS F. WHELAN Justice of the Supreme Court MOTION DATE J/27115 SUBMIT DATE 5/ 12/17 Mot. Seq.# 001 - MG Mot. Seq.# 002 - XMD Mot. Seq. # 003 - XMD CDISP Y _ N _K_ ---------------------------------------------------------------X JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOClATION, Plaintiff, -againstTHOMAS RE a/k/a THOMAS C. RE, NATIONAL : CITY BANK, ELAINE F. RE, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA and "JOHN DOE", said name : being fictitious, it being the intention of plaintiff to designate any and all occupants of premises being foreclosed herein, and any parties, corporations or entities, if any, having or claiming an interest or lien upon the mortgaged premises, SHAPIRO, DiCARO & BARAK Attys. For Plaintiff I 75 Mile Crossing Blvd. Rochester, NY 14624 MURRAY LAW GROUP, PC Attys. For Defendant Re 132 Clyde St. - Ste. 1 West Sayville, NY 11791 FEIN, SUCH & CRANE, LLP Attys. For Def. National City Bank 1400 Old Country Rd. - Ste. I 03 Westbury, NY I l 590 Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------)( Upon the following papers numbered I to _16_ read on this motion a default judgment. among other things, cross motion for leave to file a late answer and cross motion for an extension of time to oppose the cross motion _ _ _ _ ;Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause and supporting papers I - 3 ; Notice of Cross Motion and ; Opposing papers: ; Reply papers I0-11 · 12-14 supporting papers: 4-6· 7-9 Other 15-16 (affinnation) ; (and afte1 hettring eo1111sel in support t111d opposed to the 111otio11) it is, ORDERED that this motion (#001) by the plaintiff for, among other things, a default judgment and the appointment of a referee to compute, is granted in its entirety; and it is further [* 2] JPMorgan Chase Bank v Re Index No. 264 76/ 13 Page 2 ORD HR ED that this cross motion (//002) by the dcJ'cndam, Thomas Rt:, for leave to file and serve a late answer, is dt:nicd in its cnlirety; and it is further ORDERED that the motion ( #003) hy the plaintiff for, an c:-;tension of time to oppose lhc cross motion and serve reply papt:rs or for u vacatur of default to the cross motion is denied as academic; and it is f'ur!her ORDERl:..lJ that the proposed Order suhmitted by plaintiff, as modified by the court, is signed simultaneously herewith. This l'orcdosurc action was commenced by filing 011 October I, 2013. The matter was reassigned to this Part pursuant to J\.dministrativc Order No. 52-17, dated May 5, 2017 and submitted for decision on May 12, 2017. In essence, on Septcmber24, 2003, de.fondant, Thomas Re, borrowed $ I , 153,750. 00 from plaintiff' s prcdecessor-i n-intcrcst and executed a Consolidation, Ex tension, and Modification J\.greerncnt to Washington Mutual Bunk. FJ\. Thereafter, the ddcndant Thomas Re executed a Consolidation and/or Modification Mortgage <lated January 1. 2012, in the sum or $1.2(>8.266.07. to plaintiff, who is th<: successor in interest by purchase from the FDIC, as rcl:eivcr for Washington Mutual Bank. FJ\. Plaintiff executed a Purchase and J\.ssumption Agreement with the FDIC' (see JP1lforga11 Chase Bank, NY v Schott, 130 J\D3d 875. 15 N YS3d 359 [2d Dept 20151: JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. v Miodow11ik , 91 i\D3d 546, 937 NYS2d 192 11'1 Dept 20121). Since .January 1. 2013, the dckndant has failed to pay the monthly installments due and owing. DefCndant has failed to submit a timely answer to the complaint, but by counsel, did file an untimely notice of appearance dated July 30, 20 14 and received by plaintiffs counsel on J\.ugust 4. 20 14. Plain ti ff bas moved (#00 I) for a default judgment and an order of reference. Defendant has cross moved (ff002) for leave to lilc and serve a late answer. Defendant was served by substituted service (CPLR 308J2j) on October 14, 2013. The instant cros:-; motion was originally returnable on .January 27, '.:WI 5, some 15 moths thtcreaftcr. Defendant has fojlcd to demonstrate grounds for vacating his default (see HSBC Bank USA v Tnwre. 139 /\D3d 1009. 32 NYS3d 28312d Dept 20161). It is a well-known rule ol'Iaw thal to be entitled to such relief', it was incumbent upon the defendant to demonstrate ··excusable dcfaul l grounds" which require a showing or a reasonable excuse for the default and a demonstration of a potentially meritorious defense (sl'e Me/1011 1• /zmirligil. 88 J\D3d 930. 93 J NYS2d 667 [2d Dept 2011 J. lJllOfing. Wellv Fargo Bank, NA. 1 Cer11i11i, 84 AD3d 789, 921 NYS2d 643 l2d Dept 201 1J: HSBC Bank USA, Natl. Ass'1111 Rotimi. 121 J\.D3d 855, 995 NYS3d 8 l l2d Dept 20 l 4]: Mm111i110 Dev., Inc. v Linares. l 17 ;\ D3d 995, 986 NYS2d 57812d Dept 20 14J: Diederich 1· Wetzel, 11 2 AD3d 883 .. 979 1 YS2d 605 1 2cl Dept 20131: Con11111111i~v Preserv. Corp. 1 Bridgewater Co11domi11iums, LLC, 89 /\D:id 784. 785, 932 NYS2d .378 12<.I Dept 20111). The material facts of the asserted meritorious <lclcnsc must be advanced in an aflidavit or th<.: defendan t or a proposed verified answer attached to the moving papers (see Ger.)·/rmm1 "Altmad. 131 J\.D3d 1104, 16 NYSJd 836 I2d Dept 2015 I: Karalis v Ne1v Di111e11sious llR. Inc .. I 05 J\.DJd 707, 962 NYS2d 647 12d Dept 20131). 1 1 l !ere. the ddendaot foils to advance a reasonable cxcu:sc !'or the default in answering the complaint. What little that is offored docs not constitute i..l reasonable excuse or an excusable default [* 3] .JPMorgan Chase Bank' R1: lmkx. No. 26-l76113 Page 3 (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Pmvell. 148 /\D3d 1123. YS3d _ 12<l Dept 20171: U.S. Ba11k NA . '' Louis. 148 /\D3<l 758 . ..+8 YS3d 458 I2d Dept 20171: JPMorgan Clw.\·e Bt111k, NA. ,. Boampong. 145 /\ D3d 981. 44 . YS3d 189 j2d Dept 2016 J: Deutsche Ba11k Natl. Trust Co. 1· Patrick, )}6 /\D3d 970.15 YS3d 36412d Dept 2016J: Federal Natl. Mtge. As.rn. l' Zt1pata. 14. 1 /\D3d 857, 40 NYS3d 438 12<l Dept 2016 J: U.S. Bank N.A . v Barr. 139 /\D:'ld 937. 30 1 YS3d 57(1 I2d Dept 2016 J). Thcrcl'orc. it is unnecessary to consider whether the defendant dl!monstratcd a potentially meritorious defense. Even if' it were otherwise. tht: defendant foiled to dt:monstrate poss..::ssion or a meritorious ddi.:nse to the plaintiffs claim for f'on.:closurc and sale. The only deli.:nses or any merit set forth in the proposed answer concern standing. One of the various ways standing may be established is by due proof' that tht: plaintiff or its custouial agent was in possession or the note prior to the commencement or the action. The production of such proof is sullicicnt to establish. prima focic. the plaintilT"s possession of the rt:quisitc standing to prosecute its claims for foreclosure and sale (see A urora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor. 25 NY3d 355. 12 NYS3d 612120151: U.S. Bank v Ehrenfeld, 144 /\D3d 893. 41 NYS3d 2()<) ]2<.l Dcpt 20161: JPMorgan Chase Ba11k, Natl. A.\·s11. v Weinberger. 142 /\D3d 643. 37 N YS3d 18(1 l2d Dept 20161: Citimortgage. Iuc. v Klein , 140 J\D3d 913. 33 NYS3d 432 l2d Dept 201Cll: ll.S. Bank Natl. Ass11. ''Godwin , 137 J\D3d 1260. 28 NYS3d 45012<.I Dept 20 16]: Wells Fargo Blf11k, N.A. v Joseph , 137 J\D3d 896, 26 NYS3d 583 12d Dept 2016 J: Emigmut Bank v Larizza, 129 ./\D3d 904. 13 t Y '3d 129 j2d Dept 20151: Deutsch e Bank N atl. Trust Co. v Whalen. 107 ./\D3d '>3 1. 969 YS2d 82 I2d Dept 2013 J). /\ppcllate case authorities have repeatedly held that in determining the standing or a foreclosing plainti re it is the mortgage note that is the dispositin! instrumt:nl. not the mortgage indenture (see A urora Loa11 Servs., LLC v Maude/. 148 J\ D3cl 965. 50 N YS3<l 154 I2d Dept 20171: E verlwme Mtge. Co. v Pettit. 235 ./\D3d I 054, 23 NYS3d 408 l2d Dept 2016 I). This result is mandate<l by lhc long standing principal incicknt rule which provid<.:s that because u mortgage is merely the sl!curity l'or the <lt:bt the obligations or the mortgage pass as an incident to the passage of the note (see A urora lmm Servs., L L C v Taylor. 25 NY3d 355, supra: Wells Fargo Ba111', N.A. v Clwrlaff, 134 /\ l)Jd 1099. 24 NYS3d ] 17 I2d Dept 20151: Emigrant Bank 11 Larizza. 129 /\ D3d 904. supra). A foreclosing pla intiff has standing if it is either the holder or the assignee or the underlying note at the time that the action is commt!nccd (see Aurora loan Servs., LLC v Taylor. 25 Y3d 355 ..rnprn: l. oa11care v Firshi11g, 130 /\IBd 787, 14 NYS3<l 41 () l2d Dept 10151: Emigrant Bank ii /,arizw . 129 /\D3d 904. supra). "l :ithcr a \¥Tittcn assignment of the underlying note or tht: physical delivery or it to the plaintiff prior to the commencement or the action is sulfo:icnt to transli.: r lhe ~>hligation ·· (see icl., Wells Ftll'f?O Bunk, NA v Par1'er. 125 /\DJd 8485 NYS3d 130 j1d Dept 20 151: U.S. Bank NA" Guy. 125 J\DJd 845. 5 NYS3d 116120151). ./\dditionally. as was accomplished here. the plaintifrs attachmt:nt or a duly indorsl.!d mortgage note to its complaint or to the certilil.:at\.! of merit required by CPI .R .1012-b. coupkd with an alfo.lavit in which it al leges th.It it had possession of th1: note prior to the commencement of the activn. has bc\.!n hdd to constitute due proof or the plaintilrs possession or the note prior to the commencement ol'thc action and th us its standing lo pn>st:cute its claim for forl.!closurc and sale (S<'<' [* 4] JPMorgan Chase Bank v Re Index No. '.2647<>113 Page 4 JPMorgan Clwse Bank, N.A . •' Venture, 148 /\D3d 1269. 48 YS3d 824 l3d Dept 20171: Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v Garriso11. 146 /\D3d I 85. 46 NYS3d I 85 I2d Dept 2017 I: U.S. Bank N atl. 1 •Samw11u111 . 146 /\D3d 1010. 45 NYS3d 54712d lkpt 20171: Deutsche Bank N atl. Trust Co. v Logan. 142 /\l)Jd 861. 45 NYS3d J8912d Dept '.20 171: De11t.vc/1e Bank Natl. Trust Co. 1• Um elt. 1-+5 /\DJd -W7. 41 NYS3d 882 I lst Dept 2016j: N atioustar Mtge., LLC 1 Weisbl11111. 143 /\lBd 866. 39 NYS3d 491. 49412d Dept 20 161: Deutsche Btmk Natl. Trust Co. v Webster. 142 /\IBd 636. 37 NYS3d 283 12d Dept 20161 : JPMor1-ta11 Clta.~·e Bu11k, Natl. 1fas'11 v Weiuberger, 142 /\DJd MJ, s111>m: Federal Natl. M(~e. Ass11. v Yakaputz II, Jue .• I 4 I J\l)JJ 506. 507, 35 NYSJ<l 236. 237 12d Dept 20161: JPMorgan Clwse Bank, N atl. Assn. v Kobee , 140 D3d 1622. 32 lYJ<l 767 I2d Dl:pl 20 I 61: JPMorgan Cltase Bank, N.A. 11 Roseman . I 37 AD3d I 222, 29 NYS3d 380 j2d Dept 20 161 : Deut.fflte Bank N atl. Trust Co. v Leigh . 137 J\D3d 841. 28 NYS3d 86 l2d Dept 20161: N atioustar M tge., LLC v Catiw11e, 127 /\D3d I 15 I. 9 NYS3d 315 120151). 1 llmkr this statutory framework. it is clear that lo establish its standing as the holder of a duly endorsed note in blank. a plaintiff is only required to demonstrate that it had physical possession or thc note prior lo commencement of the action (see Deutsclte Bt111k N atl. Trust Co. v Brewlm1. 142 /\D3d 683. 37 NYS3d 25 l2d Dept 2016J: JPMorgan Cltase Bank, N atl. Ass11. v Weinberger. 142 /\DJ<l 6-U. 645. s11prn). In such cases ... it is unnecessary to give factual details or the delivery in <mkr lo establish that possession was obtained prior to a particular date ... since a plaintiff in possession or a note l:ndorscd in blank is thus without obligation to establish how it came into possession of the instrumcm in order to be able to enforce it (.H'(' UCC 3 204121; Pen11ymac Corp. v Cltm·ez. 144 /\LBd I 006. 42 NYS3d 239 I2d Dept 20161. q1101ing JPMorgan Chase Bank, N atl. Assn. " Weinberger. 142 /\D3d at 645, SllJJl'<I) . In addition, bc.:causc ..a signature on a negotiable instrument ·is presumed to be genuine or authorized' (see UCC 3 -3071 1II b I), the plaintiff is not required to submit proof that the person ·who endorsed the subject note to the plaintiff on bchalfof the original lender was authorized lo do so" (CitiMorlgll{fe, In c. v McKi1111ey, 144 J\D3d I 073. 42 NYS3d 302 12d Dept 20161). Moreover. the apparent invalidily or any written assignments of mortgage arc.: thereby n:nckred irrekvant lo the issue or standing (see A urora loan Servs. , LLC 11Tlly lor,15 NY3d 355. s11pm). It is thl: note that is the control li ng document for standing purposes (see A urom Loan S en •\·., LLC '' Taylor . 15 NY3d 355. supra; A urora Loan Sen•.\·., LLC 11 Maude/, 148 J\D3d %5, . suprn; see also [)eutsclte Ba11k Natl. Tru.\·t Co. v Pietra11ico , 31 Misc3d 528. 928 NYS2d 8181 Sup. Ct. Suffolk County 20111, c{//d. 102 AD3d 714. 957 YS2d 868120131). Indeed. the establishment or the plainti rrs actual possession of the mortgage note or its constructive possession through an agent on a date prior to the commencement of the action is so conclusive that it renders. una,·ailing. claims or content defects in allongcs (see U.S. Bank v Askew. 1:18 J\D3d 402. '27 NYS3d 856 [ 1'1 Dept 20161). It further renders UllU\'ailing. all claims of content tklc<.:ts in the chain or mortgage assignments (see A 11rora Loa11 Seri's., LL C 1• Tay lor. '25 NY1d 355. supra: CitiMortgage, Ille. 1• McKi1111ey. J-l4 J\D3d I 073 . .wprn: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N atl. 1 .'f.H · 11 1• Wei11berger. 142 J\L)3d 643, supro: Deutsch e Flagstar Bank, FSB 11 Memloza. 139 /\D3d 898. J2 NYS3d 27812<.l lkpt 2016 J: US Bank N atl. Trust" N augltttm. 137 J\D3d I J 99. 28 1 YS3d 444 l:?.d [)1.:pt 20 I() I: Deutsche Ba11k Natl. 1i·ust v Wlta/e11 . I 07 /\i)3J 93 I. SllJ>l'lf). [* 5] .JPMorgan Chase Bank v Re Index No. 26476/13 Page 5 The af'lidavit of Kimberly Jcrnec. dated September 23. 20 14. a Vice Presiden t oft he plaint ill: the records maintained by the plain tin: with which she has personal knowledge. and kept and rd ied upon as a regular business practice and in the ordinary course of loan servicing business. 1he plaintiff came into possession of the original note b1.:forc the commencement or the action. Such proof was su nicicnt to cstahlish the pluinti rr s standing Jue to it status as the holder or the mortgage note prior to the commc111.:emcnt of this acti on. .I PM organ Chase Bank, N.A., J~mon st rntes that based upon ht!r rev iew or As recently held by th1.: Second Department. a plaintiff that has possession of the note has standing, even where the plaintiff is the servicer and not the owner of the mortgage loan (see Central Mtge. Co. v Dallis, 149 J\DJd 898, _ NYS3<l _ l2d Dept 2017 J). Herc, plaintiff has demonstrated possession or the note prior to the commencement of the action (see OneWest Bank, FSB v Simpson. 148 /\D3<l 920, 49 NYS3d 523 I 2d Dept 20 I 71 ; H11dso11 Ci~)' Sav. Ba11k 1 Ge1111t'1 , 148 AD3<l 687, 48 NYS3d 687 12d Dept 2017 J; l/SBC Ba11k USA v E•;pi11a/, 13 7 Al)3d I 079, s11wa ~ LNVCorp. "Fra11cois, 134 AD3d 1071 , 22 NYS3d 54312d Dept 20151). 1 Finally, the Court holds that by entering into and making payments upon the modil'itation agreement with plaintil'L defendant Thomas Re reaffirmed plainti fT s ownership rights to the note at issue (see Loan Modi fi cation Agreement, par. 31C. I: see also !RB-Brasil Resseg11ros S.A. v Portobello lntem. Ltd., 84 AD3<l 63 7. 923 NYS2d 508 11 <t Dept 2011 I). The affirmative defenses asserted in the proposed ansvver of defendant , Thomas Re, to the extent 1hey arc premised upon a purported lack or standing, arc without merit. The cross motion (#002) is denied in its entirely. Th1.: motion (#003) by the plaintiff for an extension of lime to oppose the cross motion and to serve reply papers or for a vacatur of default lo the cross motion is denied as academic. Turning to plainti ff~s unopposed motion (#00 I) for a default judgment <md the appointment As noted above. the defendant has IUi led to offer a meritorious c:xcus0 for his default in answering the complaint (see Gilmore,, Gilmore. 286 !\ D2d 416, 730 N YS2d 239 [2d Dept 20011). l len:. the af!idavit of merit is sunicie-nt to support plainti rrs motion (see SRMOF II 2012-1 Tru.<ot v Tella , 139 /\D3d 599, 33 NYS3d 25 l2d Dept 20161). J>l ainti rr has demonstrated its prima facic entitlement to a default judgment against the dekndanl (see Bank of New York Mel/011 ._. /;.mirligil. 144 AD3<l l 067, 44 NYS3d 44 12d Dept 20161). or a referee to compute. the application is granted. !\!though an express dcmaml for dismissal of this <.:omplU!int as abandoned pursuant to ( ' PLR :i215(c) is not included in the dckmlant"s notice of cross motion (#002), the Court will address the issue. even though it is only raised in the ddcnc.lanl 's reply papers. l fndcr the unique circumstances or this cas1.:. the Cou rt concludes that the defendant's hclatccl service or a notice of appearance constituted a waiver or the <lcfcnc.lant's right to seek dismissal or the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) (sc..>e Meyers v S/ut~·ky. 139 AD2d 464. 527 NYS2d 46412d Dept 19881: IISBC USA 1• Lugo. 127 AD3d 502. 9 NYS3d 6 I l ~ Dept 20 15 J l·'Dclcndnnt waived h1.:r right to seek dismissal ... because she did not object to plainti !T's treatment of her untimely ans\.vcr as a notice of appearance ..... J; l/odwm 1· Vi1111ie's Farm .Market. 103 AD3d 549. 959 NYS2d 440I1'1 Depl 20131 !..That subdivision docs not apply whcrc. as here. the defendants served ans\vc-rs. albeit unverified nnes..J: 1 [* 6] .JPMorgan Chase Bank\ Re Index o. 2647(i/I > Page 6 (ii/more v Gilmore. 286 /\D2d .+ 16, 730 NYS2d 239 I2<l Dept 20011: S11tter 11 Rosenbaum. 166 J\D2d 644, 561 YS2tl 72 I2d Dept l 990 ]: see Kenernl~l '. HS BC Ba11k USA . N atl. As.rn. v Grella. 145 J\DJ<l 669. 44 NYS3d 5612<l Dept 20 I 6j: R<ifiq v Weston , l 71 J\D2d 783. 56 7 YS2d 503 j2d Dept 19911). J\llhough not nece~sary. even on the merits. the defendant ·s application must he denied. ·1he J\ppdlate Division. Second Department has instructed that in cases wherein no motion is interposed within the one year time limitation period, avoidance of a dismissal or the complaint as abandoned requires the plaintiff to oner a reasonab le excuse for the delay in moving for leave to en ter a default judgment and must demonstrate a potentially meri torious cause of action (see Giglio 11 N TJ/WP, Inc., 86 /\D3d 30 I, 308, 926 NY~2d 546 12d Dept 2011 I: see also Ko/111 v Tri-State /lardwood.;, Ltd., 92 J\ D3d 642. 937 NYS2d 865. 866 l2d Dept 2012.1 ; 115-41 St. A lba11s Holdi11g Corp. v E'if(lfeof J/arriso11, 71 J\Dld 65:~. 894 Y~2d 896 l2d Dept 2010J: Cy11a11 Slleetmetal Prods., Inc. v B.R. Fries & Assoc., Inc., 83 AL)3d 645, 919 NYS2d 873 12d Dept 20 I I]; First Nation wide Bank 11 Prete/. 240 J\DJd 629. 659 ' YS2d 291 12d Dept 19971). In addition. appellate case authorities have established that a moving defondant 's failure to show prejudice by the pla1ntitrs delay in mov ing lor the default may lip the bularn.:e in favm or a finding of suJ1icicnt cause lo excuse the de lay prm•ided an explanation of' the dcby is advanced which evinces no intent to abandon the action and a meritorious cause of action is shown to exist (see LNV Corp. v Forbe.\". I 22 /\D3d 805, 996 NYS2d 696. [2d Dept 2014J; Brooks v Somerset S urgical Assocs .. I 06 J\DJd 624. 966 NYS2d 65 j2d Dept 20131: Laourdaki.'i v Torres, 98 /\D3d 892. 950 YS2d 70111 st Dept 20 l 2J; La Valle v Astoria Constr. & Pm•iug Corp. , 266 /\02d 28, 697 YS2d 60511 st Dept 19991; Hinds v 2461 R ealty Corp., 169 AD2d 629. 632. 564 NYS2d 763 11 st Dept 199 I I). Delays attributabk to the parties· engagement in mandatory settlement conlCrencc procedures. or in litigation communications, discovery. motion practice and other pre-trial proceedings have been held to negate any intention lo abandon the action and arc thus excusable under CPI ,R 321 S(c) (see I/SBC Bank USA, Natl. Assn. v Grella , 145 /\D3d 669. supra; see olso Brooks v Somer.\·et Surgical Assocs .. 106 J\D3d 624, suprn; Laourdakis v Torre.'i, 98 J\ DJd 892 . .rnpm). Moreover. the determination of whether an excuse is reasonable in any given instances is committed to the sound discretion or the motion court (see Ba11k of New York Me/1011 v l zmirligil. 1.+4 J\D3d 1067. 44 NYS3d 4412d Dept 20161: Maspetll Fed. S av. a11d l oa11 Ass11. '' Brook~ru Heritage, /,LC. 138 J\D3d 703. 28 NY '3d 325 12d Dept 20161). I !en:. the plaintiff has demonstrated. in its opposing papers. tha t sulfo.:ient cause exists for the delay within the contemplation of'C J>LR 32 15( c) due to its engagement in a plethora oflitigatinnrela ted activiti<.:s from which an intent not to abandon its claims for foreclosure and sale is discernablc. The R.11 requesting a foreclosure settlement conft:rence was mailed to the dckndanl on October 17. 2013. Thcrealkr. settlement conferences were held on :\If arch 12. 20 I.+. May 23. 2014. July 30. 20 I 4 and Octob<.:r 6. 2014. It is imponam to note that this matter was released from the CPl.R 3408 foreclosure settlement conference part of the cou11. on October 6. 2014. This motion was made Jess than two moths thereafter. It is clear that under the applicable rule. 22 YC'RR ~202.12-a( c )(7). al I motions arc lo be held in abeyance \\hi le such con l'crcnccs art: being pursued. I kn:. unlike the two year dday in Wells Fargo Bauk ,, Bo/1(111110. 146 J\D3d 844. 45, ' YS3d 173 [* 7] .J PMorgan Chase Bank v Re Index No . 16-476113 Page 7 (2d D<:pt 2017 ). a motion was timely made fol lowing the n.:leasc from the rnn fi:n.:ncc part (see genaully. State of N ew York Mtge. A ge11c:r 1• Li11ke11herg. /\D3d . 20 17 WL 2 125760 j2d Dept 20171). The n.x:ord rdkcls that plaintiff took active steps in pursuit or a default judgm1:nt alkr release from the conference pa11 and there is no evidence of a pattern of will lul noncompliance. The reasonahk excuse offerc<l is not eonclusory or unsubstantiated. The court finds that the plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable excuse ror the delay in rnoving for the fi:\ation of the defendant· s defoults (see Bank of New York Mel/cm "/zmirligil, 144 !\ D3d I 067, I 0(>9,.rnpru: t.rfaspeth Fed. Sav. aml Loan A ssn. v Brook~pn lleritage, LLC. 138 /\ D3d 703, 794, supru; Golden E agle Capital Corp. 1• Para111op1111t Mgt. Corp .. 143 J\. D3d 670, 38 ' YS3d 438 I2d Dept 10161; SRMOF /I 2(JI 2-1 Tru. ·t \ ,. Tel/a. 13<) /\D3d 599. 33 YS3d 25 11' 1 Dept 20161: lorizw v Mattikoiv , 25 /\D3d 762, 807 NYS2d 663 J'.2<.1Dept20061: /Ja rris v Morriso11. 49 /\03d 276. 851 NYS2d 87111 '' Dept 20081: Ingenito, , Grumman Corp .. 192 J\.D2d 509. 596 NYS2d 83 r1t1 Dept 1993 I). In nddi ti on. the court li nds that the plaintiff bas advanced sunicicnt ev idence ora meritorious cause of action fo r foreclosure and sale, in its verified complaint and the submitted aflidavil of merit ('"'eCPl.R 3215le I). Mon:o,·c r, the absence of prejudice to defendant. Thomas Re. lips the ha lance in favor or th~ plaintiff. The rec,)rd reflects that such defendant has enjoyed use or the mortgag1xl prcmist:s in Sag 1larbor. l\ Y. since Januar) I, 2013. \.\hen the default in payment occurn.:d, without maki ng any payments or amou nts due fo r real estate taxes, insurance or other expenses. As n..:fkcted in the anidnv it or merit, as or the dale or this application in Decem ber or 2014, cumulative r<:al prope rly laxes totaled $36.355.28 and hazard insurance totulcd $67.788.00. all amounts fo r which the plaintiff had to assume. to protect the mortgaged premises. In fact. the record rellects that there is no indication the defendant was in any way prejudiced by the plaintilrs delay (see First N ationwide !Ja11k ,, Prete/. 240 /\D3d 629. supra). Those portions or dcf'cndunt 's moti on where in he seeks dism issal of the complaint pursuant to CPL R 32 15 arc thus d<..:nic<l. 1 Ther<..: fo re. the Court grants plaint i rt~ s motion (#00 I ) in its entirety, denies <lclendant 's cross motion (/1002) in its entirety. <lenics as academic plaintiffs motion for an extension (#003) an<l simultam:ously signs the proposed Order. us modi lied. D/\TU): -- \~./ ' ,' - ~- · ' ' \ I - - -.,; i\ / - l\ \ _.. ..,, ... Tl IOM ,\S F. \\ l 11· I..\'\ . .1.S.C. 1 ·- IL appears that C\ c.:11 if the motion were 10 he granted and the.: cast! dismissed. the plaintiff \\Ollld have lhe rig.ht to rcl'.ommenl'.c 1hc action pursuant to CPLR 205(a) (.\('(' Wells Fart.:o 81111k, NA 1• Ei11111i. 148 /\D.ld 193. ·17 NYS3d 80 J2d Dept '2017J).

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.