Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Einhorn

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Einhorn 2017 NY Slip Op 31163(U) June 1, 2017 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 35426/12 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 & ORDcR coVY INDEX No. 35426/12 SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK IAS PART 33 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: Hon. THOMAS F. WHELAN Justice of the Supreme Court MOTIONDATE 7/24115 SUBMIT DATE 5/12117 Mot . Seq. # 001 - MotD Mot. Seq. # 002- XMD CDISP Y_ N _x_ Pre-Trial Conf: 6/30/ 17 ---------------------------------------------------------------X DEUTSCHE BANK NATION AL TRUST CO., as Trustee of the Indymac Indx Mortgage Loan Trust : 2005-AR29, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-AR29 under the Pooling and Servicing : Agreement dated November 1, 2005, CHARLES W ALLSHEIN, ESQ. Atty. For Defendant Einhorn 115 Broadhollow Rd. - Ste. 350 Melville, NY 11747 Plaintiff, -againstKATHRYN B. EINHORN a/k/a KATHRYN EINHORN, FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY d/b/a LAND ROVER CAPITAL GROUP, METRO PORTFOLIOS, INC., CHASE BANK, USA, NA, "JOHN DOE #1" to "JOHN DOE #10", the last ten names being fictitious and unknown to plaintiff the persons or pruties intended being the person or parties, if any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the mortgaged premises described in the verified complaint, HOU SER & ALLISON, APC Attys. For Plaintiff 60 E. 42"d St. - Ste. 1148 New York, NY 10165 : : : : Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------X [* 2] Deutsche Bank v Einhorn Index No. I2/35426 Page 2 Upon the following papers numbered I to _ 1_0_ read on this motion summary judgment, default jud!!mcnt <1nd appointment of a referee to cornpuh.:. <1mong other thin!!s and cross motion to compel discovcrv and sumrnitr\'. judgment. among othe1 things. ; Notice of Mot ion/Order lo Show Cause and supporting papers I - 3 ; Notil:<.: of Cross Motion and supponing papers: 4-7 ; Oppo~ ing papers: _ _ __ __ Reply papers 8-9 ; Other 10 (affidavit or payment default) ; Other supplementa l affirmation <not considered); (,,.1d .1Her lie111i11g eou11se l i11 ~uppo.t ,1mh'P'P~I to 1lte 111olio11) it is. ORDER ED that those portions or thjs motion (//00 l) by the plaintiff for an order awarding it summary judgment dismissing tht: affirmative defenses and counterclaims ass<.:11cd in the answer served by Jefondant. Kathryn B. Einhorn (hereinafter ·'Einhorn'') . is granted lo the extent that thc plaintiff is awarded partial summary judgment pursuant to CP LR 3212 dismissing all of the anirmativc dclcnsc and counterclaims set forth in the answer served by Einhorn hut not as to the unpleadcd challenge to the plaintiffs compliance with the service or the ninety day notice requirements imposed upon it by RPAPL ~ 1304: and it is rurther ORDERED that the remaining portions of the plaintiff's motion (f/00 1) wherein ii seeks summary judgment on its complaint against the answering defendant, default judgments against the remaining defendants served with process. the deletion of thc U1nknown defendants and a caption amendment lo rc1lcct this change togcthcr with an ordcr appointing a referee to compute is denied without prejudice: and it is further ORDERED that the cross motion (11002) by Einhorn for, among other things, Lo compel discovery. sumnwry judgment and a posting a bond, is denied in its entirety. and it is runhcr or ORDERED that pursuant to CPLR 32 J 2(g). the court hereby dec lares that the issue of th<.: plaintilrs standing to prosecute its claims for foreclosure and sale is resolved for all purposes in fovor or the pluinti ff: and is further ORDERED that pursuant to CPLR 32 l 2(g), the court hereby declares that the trial of this action. if any. shall l..,c limited to the unresolved issue framed by the terms of this memo decision and order, namely, the plaintiffs compliance with the service or the ninety day notice requirements imposed upon it by RP/\PL § 1304: and it is fu1thcr ORDERED that counsel for the respective parties shall appear for a pre-trial conforenci..: at 9:30 a.m. on .J unc 30, 2017, in the courtroom orthe umforsigncd located in the Annex Building or the Supreme Court at One Court Street, Ri verhead. New York 1190 I. at which time, the court shall issue directives necessary to ready this matter for a trial on the limited, unresolved issue or the plaintiJrs comp! ian1;e vvith the ninety day notice requirements imposed upon it by RP!\ PL§ l 304. This foreclosure action was commenced by Ii ling on November 2 l,201 2. The matter was reassigned to this Part pursuant to Administrative Order No. 52-17. dated May 5. 201 7 and submitted [* 3] Deutsche Bank v Einhorn Index No. 12/35426 Page 3 for d1x:isio11 on May 12, 2017. 1 In essence. on October 25. 20()5. Einhorn borrowed $456,000.00 from tile pluintifrs prc<lccessor-in-intercst. a federal savings bank , and executed a prnmis!';ory note and mortgage promising to repay same. The note, indorsed in blank, was delivered to plaintifrs custodian on November 7. 2005. Since November 1. 2011. Einhorn has foiled to pay the monthly installments due and owing. Only Einhorn has answered the action. ln her answer, Einhorn alleged eighteen af1innative defenses and two counterclaims. In the moving papers. plaintiff addresses its bur<len of proof on this summary judgment motion and rcf"utcs the artinnativc defenses of the answer. Therefore, plaintiff has satisfied its prima fo1,;ie burden on this summary judgment motion (see HSBC Bank USA, N atl. Assn. v Espinal. 137 /\D3d 1079, 28 NYS3d 107 r1c1 Dept 2016J; U.S. Bank N atl. Assn. v Cox . 148 /\D3d 692, 49 NYS3d 527 l2d Dept 20171). It was thus incumbent upon 1hc answering defendant lo submit proof suflicient to raise a genuine question o I' fact rebutting the plaintiiTs prima facie showing or in support of the aflim1ative defenses and counterclaims asserted in the answer or otherwise avai lable to her (see F lagstar Bank 1• Bell<~fiore. 94 /\D3d 1044. 943 NYS2<l 551 12d Dept 20l2J: Grogg As.w>cs. v Sout/J R d. Assocs. . 74 /\D3d 1021. 907 NYS2d 22 l2d Dept 2010J: Wells F"rgo B"11k v Karla, 71 /\D3d 1006. 896 NYS2d 681 12d Dept 201 OJ; Washington Mut. Bank v O 'Con11or. 63 /\DJd 832,880 NYS2d 696 [2d Di.:pt 20091: J.P. Morx a11 Chase Bank, NA v Agnelfo, 62 AD3d 662. 878 NYS2d 397 [2<l Dept 20091: Aames Funding Corp. v Houston, 44 /\D3d 692, 843 NYS2d 660 [2d Dept 2007]). Notably, anirmative derenses und counterclaims predicuted upon legal conclusions that arL' not substantiated with allegations of fact are subject to dism issal (see CPLR 3013. 30181 bj; Katz v M iller. 120 /\D3d 768. 991 NYS2d 346 [2d Dept 20141; Bec/Jer v Feller, 64 /\D3 6T2, 677, 884 NYS2d 83 [2d Dept 20091: Colten Fashion Opt., Inc. v V & M Opt., Ju e., 51 AD3d 619, 858 NYS2d 260 r2d Dept 20081). Where a defendant fai ls to oppose some or all matters advanced on a motion for summary judgment. the racts as alleged in the movanf s papers may be deemed admillcd as there is. in effect, a concession that no question of foct exists (see Kue/J11e & Nagel, Jue. v Bai<le11. 36 NY2d 539, 369 NYS2d 667 I I 975 ]; see also M adeline D'A11tlto11y E11ter., Im:. 11 Sokolmvsky , 10 I /\D3d 606, 957 NYS2cl 881.1 st Dept 2012 l:A rgent Mtge. Co., LLC 1 l~1e11 tesa11a. 79 J\D3d I 079. <) 15 NYS2d 59 J j '.2d Dept 20 l 0 I). Jn addition, the failure to raise pleaded affirmative defenses or countcrcluims in opposition to a motion for summary judgment renders those defenses abandoned and thus without any efficacy (see New York Commercial Bank v J. Realty F R ockm vay, Ud. , J 08 Al)Jd 756. 969 NYS2d 796 [2d Dept 2013 J; S tarknum v Ci~l' ofL ong Beach, I 06 /\1)3d 1076. 965 NYS2d (,()9 l2d Dept 20 13]). 1 The Court rejects the Tenth. Eleventh, Twelfth, Thirteenth and 1-ourtcenth /\f'linnativc Defenses and First and Second Counterclaims (standing). One of the various ways standing may be 1 Contrary lo Einhorn·s counscl ·s representations in his corrcspondcnc.c dated April 21. 2017 and Muy24, 20 17. this matter hus only recently been reassigned to this Court and prior thereto had been assigned to the I Ion. Daniel Martin. [* 4] Deutsche Bank v Einhorn Index No. 12/3 5426 Page 4 cstahlishcd is by due proof' that the plaintiff or its custodial agent was in pusst::>sion or the note prior to the commcnccmcnt or th<.' w..:t ion. The production of such proor is sunici en t lo cswblish. prim a facie, the plainlif'f s possession o r the requisitl..! stand ing to prosecute its claims for foreclosure and sale (s<'e A urora Loa11 Serv.\·.• LLC v Taylor. 25 Y3d 355. 12 NYS3d 612 l20151 : U.S. Bank v Ehrenfeld. 144 /\D3d 893. 41NYS3d269 l2d Dept 20161: JPMorgan Chase Rank, Natl. A .~.\· 11 v Weinberger. 142 /\DJd 643. 37 NYSJd 286 12d Dept 20161: Citimortgage, Inc. v Klein. 140 J\D3d <)13. 33 NYS3d 412 j2d Dept 2016J: U.S. Bank Natl. Ass '11 v <.iodwi11. 137 J\ D3d 1260. 28 NYS3d 450 I2d Dept 20161: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Joseph , I 37 J\D3d 896. 2(>NYS3d 583 j2d Dept 201 (>I: Emigrant Bank v larizza. 129 J\ D3d 904. 13 N YS3d 129 12d Dept 20 151: Deutsche Bank N atl. Trust Co. i • Whalen . 107 AD3d 93 I. 969 NYS2d 82 f2d Dept 2013 ]). 1 J\dditionally. the plainti fr S attachment or a duly indorsed mortgage note to its complaint or to thc certificate of mcrit rcquircd by CPLR 3012-b. coupled with an affidavit in which it alleges that it had possession ol.the note prior to commcncement of the action, has bce11 held to constitute due proof of the plainti IT"s possL:ss inn of the now prior to the commencement or the action and thus its standing to prosecute its claim for foreclosure and sale (see JPMorgan Chase Bank, N .A . v Veulure, I 48 /\D3d I 269 I3d Dept 20 171: Deutsclte Bank Trust Co. v Gurrison. 146 J\D3d I 85, 46 NYS3J 185 I2d Dept 20 171: Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Loga11 . 142 /\ D3d 861. -l5 YS3d 189 I2d Dept 20171: /)eutsclte Bank N atl. Trust Co. v Umelt . 145 J\ D3<l 497. 41NYS3d882 I lst Dept 20 I 6 J: N mio11star Mtge., LLC v Weisblttm , I 43 J\D3<l 866, 39 NYS3cl 491, 494 I2d Dept 20161: Deutsche Hauk Natl. Trust Co. v Webster. 142 J\03d 636 .. 37 NYS3<l 283 l2d Dept 20 1Cil: JPMorgan Clwse Bank, Natl. Ass'n v Wei11berger. I 42 J\D3J 643. s upra: Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Yakaputz 11, btc .. 141 /\ J)Jd506, 507 . 35 NYSJ<l 236. 237 f2d Dept 20161: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N atl. Ass'11 v Kobee. 140 03d 1622 . 32 Y3d 767 [2d Dept 2016 J: JPMorgan Clrnse Bank, N.A. v Roseman , 137 J\D3d 1222. 29 NYS3d 380 [2d Dept 20161: Deutsche Ba11k N atl. Tmst Co. '' Leiglt .. 137 J\D3d 84L 28 NYS3d 86 l2d Dept 1016 1 Natio11star Mtge., LLC v : Catizone. 117 J\D3d 11 51. 9 NYS3d 315 l20 15j). J\ppdlate L:ase authorities havt:! repeatedly held that in determining !he standing or a forcdosi11g plainti IT, it is the mortgage nole that is the disposi tivc instrument. not the mortgage indenture. This result is mandated by lhe long standing principa I incident rule which provides that becausc a mortgage is merely the security for the debt, the obl igations of the mo11gagL: pass as an incident to the passage or the note (see A urora Loa11 Servs. , LLC v Taylor. 25 Y3<l 355. s111Jru; Wells Fargo Ba11k, N.A. v Clwtlaf(, 134 J\ D3d I 099, 24 NYS3d 3 17 I2d Dept 10 I 51 ~ Emigra11t Bank 11 Lari:-:.a. J29 J\D3d 904, s11pra). /\forec losing pl aintiff has standing i fit is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time that !he action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Sen•s., LLC i• Taylor. 25 NY3d 355. supra; loaucare v Firsltillg. I 30 J\D3d 787. 14 NYS3d 410 I1d Dept 20 I51: Emigrant Bank v Larizza. I 29 AD3d 904, supra) . .. Either a '" ritten assignment of the underlying note or the phys ical <leli very of it to the plainti IT prior to the cc.m1mencc1m;nt of the action is suflicient to translcr the obligation" (see id . Wells Ft11·1:0 Bank, NA v Parker. 125 J\DJd 8485 NYS3d 130 j2d Dept 20 15 ]; U.S. Bank NA 11 Guy, 125 J\D3d 845 .. 5NYS3d11612015]). The plaintiff may also establish its standing by demonstrating that it is the holder or the mortgage note wi thin the contemplation of the Uniform Commercial Code. I !older status is [* 5] Deutsche Bank v Einhorn Index No. 12/35426 Page: 5 csti.lh lishe<l where the plaintiff possesses a note that. on its foce or by allonge. contains un cn<lorsc..:mcnt in blank or bears a special endorsement payable to the order of the plaintiff (see lJ('(' I 201: 3-202; 3- 204: Hartf ord Acc. & Im/em. Co. v A merican Express Co., 74 NY2<l l 53, 159 I 19891). I\ "holder'' is •'the person in possession ora negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an idt.!ntified person that is the person in possession" (UCCI 201 lbJl2 l I). Notably. the holder of an instrument whether or not he is the owner may ... enforce payment in his own namt: (see UCC 3 301; Wells Pargo Bank, N.A . v Ostiguy , 127 AD3d 1375. 8 NYS3d 669 13d Dept 2015 j) .... Bearer' means ... a person in possession of a negotiable instrument" ( UCC l· -2011b115 J). and where the note is endorsed in blank. it may be negotiated by delivery alone (see UCC 3-202111. 3 2041 2 J). "l\n endorsement in blank speci !ies no particular cndorsee and may consist of a mert: signature" and "la Jn instrument payable to order and endorsed in blank becomes payable to bearer and may be negotiafed by delivery alone until specially endorsed (U CC 3- 204121)" (JPMorga11 C!tase Bank, N atl. Assn. v Weinberger, 142 l\D3d 643, supra). Under this statutory framework, it is clear that to establish its standing as the holder ofa du ly endorsed note in blank, a plaintiff is only required to demonstrate that it had physical possession of the note prior to commencement orthc action (see Deutsc!te Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Brewton . 142 AOJd 683, 37 NYS3d 25 [2d Dept 20 161; JPMorgan C!tase Bank, N atl. Assn. v Wei11herger. 142 l\1)3d 643. 645. supra). In such cases ·"it is unnecessary to give factua l details of the delivery in order to <.:stablish th{lt possession was obt(1incd prior to u pnrticulur date ... since a plaintiff in possession of a note endorsed in blank is thus without obligation to establish how it came into possc:ssion or the instrument in order to be able to enforce it (se<:' UCC 3--204121; Pe1111y mac Corp. v C!tavez, 144 l\D3d I 006, 42 NYS3d 23912d Dept 2016], q11oring JPMorgan Clw se Bank, Natl. Assn. 11 Weinberger, 142 AD3d at 645. supra). ln addition. because "a signature on a negotiable: instrument 'is presumed to be genuine or authori&cd ' (see UCC 3- 30711 llbl), the plaintiff is not requi red to submit proof'that the person who endorsed the subject note to the plaintiff on behalf or the original lender was authorized to do so" (CitilV/ ortgage, In c. v McKi1t11ey, 144 AD3<l 1073, 42 YS3d 302 I2d Dept 2016]). Moreover, the apparent invalidity of any written assignments or mortgage me thereby rcnd<.!rcd irrelevant to the issue of standing (see A urora Loan Servs., L L C v Tay lor. 25 NY3d 355. supra). Indeed. the establishment of the plaintiff's actual possession of the mortgage note or its constructive possession through an agent on a date prior to the commencement of the ClCtion is so conclusive that it renders, unavai ling, claims of content defects in allonges (see U.S. B ank v Askew, 138 l\J)3d 402, 27 NYS3cl 856 11si Dept 20161). It further renders unavailing. all claims of conknt defects in the chain or mortgage assignments (see A urora Loan Servs., LLC v Tay lor, 25 NY3d 355. supra: CitiMortgage, In c. v l~cKinney. 144 l\D3d 1073, supra: JPMorgan Chase Bank, Natl. Ass'n v Weinberger, 1421\DJd 643, .rnprn: Deutsclte ,F/agstar B ank, FSB v Mendoza, 139 AD3d 898, 32 NYS3d 278 l2d Dept 2016 J; US Bank N atl. Trust v N1111gltto11, 137 AD3d 1199, 28 NYS3d 444 I2d Dept 2016 I: Deutsc!te Ban k N atl. Trust v Wltale11. 107 l\D3d 931. supra). Plaintifr's attachment of the note endorsed in blank to the complaint liled at the commencement of this action together with the affidavit or merit and the allegations asserted in the complnint furnished sufficient proof of the plaintiffs possession of the note at the time of the [* 6] Deutsche Bank ' Einhorn Index No. f 2/]5426 Page() commcnccmclll or this action. The affidavit of Sandra Lyew, a Senior Loan Analyst. employed by the loan servicer, avers that, based upon her review of the n.:cords maintainc<l by the servicer, with which she is personally familiar, and kept and relied upon as a regular business practice and in the ordinary course or the loan servicing business, the Power or/\uorncy and upon her training. the nok was delivered to a custodian for the plaintiff on November 7, 2005, before the commencement or the action. I lcrc. plaintiff has demonstrated its possession of the note prior lo the commenccment or the action (see A 11rora l oa11 Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355. supra: J/111lso11 Ci~}' Sav. Bank 11 Ge1111tlt , __ J\l)Jd _ , 20 17 WL 776890 [2d Dept 2017 1: I/SBC Bank USA v Espi11a!_ 137 A03d I 07(), supra; LNV Corp. v Fra11cois, 134 AIJ3d I 071, 22 NYSJd 543 [2d Dept 2015 I). ·1 ·hcrc fore, the ·1·enth, Eleventh.· 1·wel Ith, Thi 11eenth and Fourtcemh A rfi rmati ve 1)cfenscs and First and Second Co unterclaims are dismissed. Pursuant to CPLR 32 I 2(g). the court hcrehy decl41res that the issue of the plain tif'rs standing is hereby resolved in favor of the plaintiff for all purposes of this action. lk kndant·s challenge to the assignment of the mortgage is without merit since it is the note that is the controlling document for standing purposes (.,ee A urora Loan Servs., LLC 1• Taylor. 25 >JY3<l 355. supra: H'e also Deut.sclte Bank Natl. Trnst Co. " Pietrauico. 32 Misc3d 528. 928 . YS2d 818 lSup. Ct. Sulfolk County 2011 j, q//i/. 102 J\l)Jd 714. 957 YS2d 868 120131). Thcrcfon:. th..: Si:->trcnth t\llirmati\·c Defense and First and cconc.l Counterclaims an: dismissed. J\s for the cl Jim, which asse11s a lack or compliance with the Pooling and Service Agreement (PS/\). by the transfer or the promissory note into the Trust, such must be dismissed since it is clear that a mortgagor lacks standing to assert noncompliance with th<.: PS/\ (see Bank ofA m erica Natl. Assn. 1• l'atiuo. 128 AD3d 994, 9 NYS3d 656 l2d Dept 2015 J; Wells Fargo Ba11k1 N.A. v Erobobo. 127 J\D3d 1176. 9 NYS3d 3 I2 J2d Dept 2015 J; Bmtk <ifNe'v Yol'k Me/1011 11 Gales. 116 /\03<l 723, 982NYS2d<)11 J2d Dept 2014 J). Therefore. the Eleventh and Twelfth Affirmative Defenses and First and Second Counterclaims arc dismissed. /\II other anirmativc defenses and counterclaims arc dismissed as abandoned since no opposition was timel y orlcred. The Court finds numerous errors set forth in th1.: opposition orlcred in the cross motion. with rcl'erences to irrelevant affidavits. unrelated nonparty plainti ns and serviccrs and a long discussion on M ERS · authority, all irrelevant to this matter. 1lowcvcr. buried in the 184 paragraph affirmation from Einhon1 s counsel. one finds a single reference challenging the mailing of the RP /\Pl. 1304 notice (see par. 88. Wallshein aff. July 10. 2015). In essence, l ~ inhorn challenges the plaintifl~s proof as procedurally defective by reason of its failure to comport with the requirements of the business n..:cords ex1.:cption to the hearsay rule. s I lowever. not a single Anirmativc Defense in the answer sets forth a challenge to the RJ>t\Pl , notice. cvcrthcless. the court finds merit in Einhorn· s challenge to the quality of the plaintilrs proof with respect to the service ol'thc RP APL~ 1304 statutory notice. Due prooforthc mailing or the RPJ\PL ~ 1304 notice is cstahlished by submission or an anidavit or service (see ~ 1304 [* 7] Deutsche Bank v Einhorn Index No. 12/35426 Page 7 JPMorgan Cltilse Bilnk, N.A. v Scltott. 130 AD3d 875, 15 NYS3<l 359 l2d Dept 20 151 : Well.~ Filrgo v Moza. 129 A 1)3d 946. 13 NYS3d 127 I2<l Dt:pl 20 15 j), or through business records that detail a standard ofo nicc practice or procedure designed to ensun.: that items arc properly addressed and mailed (see Nassau !us. Co. v Murray. 46 NY2d 828, 414 NYS2d 117119781: Flagstar Bank ,, Mendoza , 13<) AD3d 898, 32 NYS3d 278 I2d Dept 20161; Cenlar /':SB v Ce11.rnr, I 39 AD3d 781. :n NYS3d 228 12d Depl 20 161; Vivilme Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Jus. Co. , I 14 ADJd 33, 977 N YS2d 292 j2d Dept 2013 j, t{f/'d. 25 NY3d 498. 14 NYS3d 283 12015 j; Presbyterian /Josp. vAl/state Ins. Co.. 29 /\1)3d 547, 814 NYS2cl 687 f2d Dept 20061: Residelltial lloldil1g Corp. 1• Scoll.w/11/e Ins. Co. , 286 AD2d 679, 729 NYS2d 766 p d D<.:pt 200 11). In either case. u presumption n.:ccipt arises (see Vivirme Etienne Med. Care, P. C. v Counl1J' Wide Ins. Co. , 25 N Y3d 498, 14 N YS3d 283 12015 l: f1agstar Bank v Mendoza, I J9 AD3d 898, supra; Presbyterian /losp. v Allstate Ins. Co.. 29 AD3d 547. supra: Reside11tial lloldi11g Corp., v Scol/sdale Ins. Co.. 286 A D2d 6 79 . .\·upru; see also A m erica11 Tr. Ins. Co. v Luclls, 11 I AD3d 423. 974 NYS2d 388 11 st Dcpl 20 I JI: Triple Cities Constr. Co., In c. "State of Ne w York , 161 A.D3d 868. 555 N YS2d 916 I3d Dept t 990 I). or The Court of Appeals in Bo.'i.r nk v Steinberg. 58 N Y2d 916. 919. -t60 YS2d 509 (1983 ) held that there was no need lo produce the person who did the actual mailings since .. , ljhc proor or the Shcriff s regular course or business in this regard sufficed ... In llospital for Joint Di.H!llses ,, Efrac, I nc.. I I t\D~<l 432. 433. 783 NYS2d 612 (2d Dept 2004 ), the Second Department held that an af'fidavit based upon records maintained by an in surer in the ordinary course of business did rnnstitulc admissibk evidence ("Personal knowledge of such documents. their history. or speci fie content arc not necessarily required of a document cuslodinn"). Various cases. particularly in the Second Department. have held tlrnl such business records arc admissible (see Citimortgage, 111c. v E\pimtl. 134 AJ)3d 876, 23 NYS3d 251 I2d Dept 2015 J; Olympus A m., In c. v Be11er~p llil/.\' Surgical 111st., 11 () /\.D'.kl I048. 974 NYS2<l 89 j 2d Dept 20 131; Burridl v Barreiro. 83 i\D3d 984, 922 NYS2d 465 l2d lkpt 20 11 j: Deleou v Port A utlt. of N. Y. & N. J. , 306 AD2cl 146, 76 1 NYS2cl 54 I 1M Dept 2003 1: We 're A .u ·ocs. Co. v Rodin Sportswear Ltd. , 288 A.D2d 465, 734 NYS2d I 04 !2d Dept 200 1j; Spange11herg v Clrnloupka, 229 /\D2d 482. 645 NYS2d 514 j2d Dept 19961). While .. lhc mere filin g or papers recei ved from other entities is insufficient to qualil'y the documents as business records. such records may be admitted into evidence if the recipient can establish personal knowledge of the maker's business practices and procedures, or that the records provided hy the maker were incorporated into the recipient's own records or routinely relied upon hy the recipient in its business .. (Deutsche Ba11k Natl. Tru.t·t Co. v Monica, 13 1 AD3d 737. 15 ' 1 YS3d 863 !Jd Dept 2015 ]: quoting S tate,, 1581/t St. & Riversitle Dr. lfoct.t'. Co., 111c., 100 /\IB<l ' 1293. 956 1YS2d 196 IJd Depl 20121 citing People'' Cratsley. 86 Y2d 81. 90 9 1. (> 29 YS2d 992 l J 9<)5 I). I krc. the af'lidavil ol'meril relied upon by the plaintiff contains avcrmcnls by the s~rviccr" s alfomt lhal, based upon her review of the books and records maintained by the servicer. the statutory ninety day notices were mailed lo Einhorn on Deccmbt:r 14, 20 11. There is no mention ··that the records provided by the maker were incorporated into the recipient's own records or routinely relied upon hy the rccipie11l in its bu sin~ss .. (Deutsche Bank Natl. Tru.~·t Co. v Monica, I JI AD3d 737. [* 8] Deutsche Bank v Einhorn lmlcx No. I 2/35-l26 Page 8 supra). In light of the denial of receipt by Einhorn. as set forth in her alfolavit in opposition. these condusory avcrmems arc, however. insufficient Lo <.!Slahlish due proof of the mailing of such notices as there were no avcnncnls regarding a standard of ollict practices or procedures or documcntmy proof of same. The artitlavit is just too simple and conclusory (see Ce11tral Mtge. Co. v Abralwm, AD3d __, 2017 \VL 212637612<.l Dept 2017: JPMorgan Chase Bank, Natl. Assn. v Kutch , 142 /\D3d 536. 36 NYS3d 235 j2d Dept 20161: Ce11/11r F'SB v Censor, 139 AD3d 781, supra: Cenlar 1-:'iB 11 Weisz. 136 AD3d 855, 25 NYS3d 308 12d Dept 2016]). The plaintilrs reply papers foil to atlequutely address this issue. The Court denies Einhorn·s cross motion (11002) seeking dismissal since a single issue still stands before thi s Court. Also denied is the request for discovery, which is unnecessary in light or this Court's finding and declaration as to standing. There is no showing as to how such discovery would have helped to defeat plaintiffs motion for sum mary judgment (see JPMorgan Cl111se Bank, N atl. Ass'n v Weinberger, 142 AD3d al 645-6. supra: A m erican Prescription Pfau, fo e. v A m erican Postal Workers U11io11. 170 AD2d 471. 565 NYS2d 830 l2d Dept 19911). The request for a bond is mcritlcss. The Court further rejects Einhorn ·s attempt to submit a supplemental memorandum of law. nearly two years after th...: return date. without Court approval or stipulated consent from opposing counsel. Such is not part of this record before the Court and is marked "not considered ... The Court has set this matter down for trial on the limited issue noted above, upon the rule that '·I w Ihi le this result might at times seem harsh, there must be an end to lawsujts ... '· (Ma tter of Huie (Furman ). 20 NY2d 568, 57'2, 285 NYS2d 642 [19671). The court tlll1s finds that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate its entitlement to full summary judgment. even though the Court has dismissed all the Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims.~ The only outstanding issue is the unplead claim or lack of compliance on the part of the plaintiff rega rding service of the RP APJ , § 1304 statutory notice. Summary judgment is thus granted in part but denied as lo plaintifrs demands for summary judgment on its complaint against Einhorn. Also denied arc the remaining portions of the plainti frs motion wherein jt seeks default judgments against all other dcfondants served with process. including one served as John Doc and a caption amendment to rctkct the true name or said defendant pursuant to CPLR I 024 and the deletion of the remaining dekndants. All such denials arc without prejudice to a new application for the same or similar relief in the future. Einhorn·s cross motion is denied in its entirety. l>atl.':d: Ju ne /1.2017 l ~I~-- MA 1 . WI II :t ,/\ t . J.S.C. While such a r<.!sull may seem antipodal. thut is the current state of foreclosure litigation. where certain unplcaded ddcnsc~ an~ not deemed waivable. .!

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.