Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Phillips

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Phillips 2017 NY Slip Op 31200(U) May 31, 2017 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 38385/2009 Judge: Howard H. Heckman 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] Short Form Order SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK IAS PART 18 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PR ES ENT: HON. HOW ARD H. HECKMAN JR., J.S.C. ----------------------------------------------------------------)( INDEX NO.: 38385/2009 MOTION DATE: 06/23/2016 MOHON SEQ. NO.: 001 MG 002MD DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO., Plaintiffs, -againstJOHN D. PHILLIPS fll, et. al. Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------)( PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY: ROSICK.l, ROSICKI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 26 HARVESTER A VENUE BATAVIA, NY 14020 DEFENDANT PRO SE: JOHN D. PHILLIPS III 42 ARGONNE ROAD HAMPTON BAYS, NY 11946 Upon the following papers numhered I to 14 read on this motion : Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause and supporting papers-1.::lQ_: Notice of Cross Motion and supporting papers 11-12 : Answering Affidavits and supporting papers_: Replying Affidavits and supporting papers 13-14 : Other_ : (and after hearing counsel in support and opposed to the motion) it is. ORDERED that this motion by Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., seeking an order: 1) restoring this action to the active calendar; 2) granting a default judgment; 2) discontinuing this action against the defendant identified as Antoinette Phillips and the defendants designated as "John Does" and "Jane Docs"; 3) deeming all non-appearing defendants in default; 4) amending the caption; and 5) appointing a referee to compute the sums due and owing to the plaintiff in this mortgage foreclosure action is granted; and it is further ORDERED that the cross motion by defendant John D. Phillips lll seeking an order pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) dismissing plaintifrs complaint as abandoned and cancelling the notice of pendency filed by the plaintiff is denied; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this order amending the caption upon the Calendar Clerk of the Cou11 ; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this order with notice of entry upon all parties who have appeared and not waived fmthcr notice pursuant to CPLR 2 103(b)( l),(2) or (3) within thirty days of the date of this order and to promptly file the affidavits of service with the Clerk of the Court. Plaintiffs action seeks to foreclose a mortgage in the original sum of $175,000.00 executed by defendant John D. Phillips III on January 26. 2007 in favor of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. On that same date the defendant executed a promissory note promising to re-pay the entire amow1t of the indebtedness to the mortgage lender. The plaintiff became the owner and holder of the promissory [* 2] note.: and morl!!<t!!L' as a resull or a11 assi!!nment dated i\ larch 24. 2009 .. J>lainti ff claims that thL' has JcfoullL·d in making timely month!~ mortgage payments si nce October I. 2008. l'luintiff s motion seeb an order granting a defaull judgn11.:nl based upon ckfendmll Murphy's failun.: 10 -;c r\'l~ an ans\\·cr and for thl' ap1w intment or a rcforec. ~ ~ ~ d~:lendan1 In support of the cross motion und in oppositi on 10 plaintiffs motit>ll. dcf\:ndanl .John D. Phillips submits an anidavi1 and claims that the lcndcr·s delay in prosec.:uling lhis foredosun.: adion n.:quin.:s that the complaint he dismissed as abandoned. lklendant contends that he has hcen -;eriousl:v prc_iudiced h~1 plaintifrs uday in prnsecutinµ this action. In response. the plaintiff :rnbmits an allorney"s anirmation and argues that its motion to restore must be granted since the I kcember 12. 2014 office part purge which marked the action off calendar v.-as not dispositivc or thi-; action but was merc.:ly a clerical error. Pia inti ff abo argucs that no basis exists to dismiss th...: complaint as abandoned since the bank has atted in a manner consistent with its in ten I not lo abandon prosccutit)n or this action. Pia inti ff c.:Jaims that after it s n.:prcsc.:ntativcs appeared at three court mandated settlement c.;onfcrcnces with the ac.;tion being marked .. not scllkd'" based upon the defondanCs <lefault in appearing at the conference. the subsequent dda) in prosecution was caused by the strict certification requirements mane.lated by 1 \dministrativc Orders 548/ 10 and ·.U I/I I of the Chier Administnlli,·e Judge. Plaintiff claims that ...:\er~ cl"fC.>rt was made to rnmpl) '' i th the ccrli Ii cation requirements and that a further delay wns caused h) the change in mortgage scrvicers which occurred in .lune. 2013. Plaintiff contends that additional v...:rilications were necessary from the inc.;oming morlgag...: servicer to ensure the acwracy the nwrtgage documcnts and once received in full by May. 2016. the plaintiff immediately servcd thi s motion. Plain ti IT also daims that the delay in seeki ng a de la ult judgment has clearly not prejudiced the dekndant as he concedes that he has conlinucd to reside in the premises without making any paym...:nts required under the terms of the note and mortgage .. PlaintilL1lso claims that there is sufficient c\·idenc.:e. in the form or an affidavit fi·om the mortgage servicer" s rcprcscntati\·e. to ...:stabli-;h the plain1itrs right to fon.:closc.:. or 1'11c proponent or a Sllll11llary judgment motion must make a prima facie shO\\·ing of c.:nl itlcmcnt tojudgrnc.:nt as a matter of la\\. tendering sufficient evidence to diminak any material question or fact from the C~l se . The grant or summary judgment is appropriate only when it is c.:lem that no material and triable.: issues or foct have been presented (Sillman 1·. '/'1re111ieth ( ·entun·- Fox Fi/111 ( 'or11.• :l NY2d ~95 ( I ()57)). The moving party bears the initial burden or pnn·ing cntilkmcnt to summary judgment ( ll"i11egrod ,._ J\Tl 1 .\fedirnl ( 'e111a. 64 Y:::!d 85 I (I 98))). Onc.:c .;uch proof" has hL'c.:n pn1rkrcd. the burden shilis to the opposing part~ who. to ddcat the motion. must c1fkr e\ idl.'.11<.:1: in admissihk l(irlll. and ni usl SCI forth foc.:ts sul'ficienl to rcquin: ;J trial of an~ issue or foc.:t (('l'l .R .1212(h): /.11ckemw111· ('it." <~f r\'e1r fork. 49 ' Y~d 557 (1980)). Su111111<11') judg.ncnt shall 11111~ be.: gn.1111\.'d \\hcn lhc.:re arc llO i. .;suc.:s or lll<ltCrial fact and the C\'idellCI.: r...:quiri..:s the.: C.:Ollrt IO direct :1 judg.111c11t in foqir or the 1110\'Ulll :is a matter ol' law (1-i·iencl.,· (f.·Jni11/((I. \'. .·lssociut('d Fur \ .I lc11111/(1ct ///'('I'S. 4() Y 2d I ()(1) ( j()7<)) ). hH it lcmenl to st11n111ary .i u<lgment in fo \'lff of' the for...:closi ng pla inti IT is estahlishl'd. pri nia for it• hy lhl' plai111i ff<; production or tlll.' mortgagl' and the unpaid note. and l'\'idl'lll'l' or dc1;1ult in pa~llll'nl (S<'(' //"ells l-i1rgo Uc111~ .\'.• /. 1·. l:'rohoho. 127 /\DJd 1176. <) IYS3d ~12 C 0 ' 1 lkpl..2015 ): //"el/, Forgo Ua11k. .\' .I 1· . Iii. 122 1 \D:ld 72(1. ()95 ' YS~d 7:05 (~ "'1 Dept..2014)). -2- [* 3] CPLR 32 I 5(c) pro,·idcs that ..if the plaimiff fails to take prm:ccdings flH· thc entry of' judg1m.:nl \\ ithin one year alkr a default. the court shall not enter judgment hut shall dismiss the complaint as abandonc..:d. v. ithout C\>sts. upon its 0\\11 initiati\e or on motion unless sufficient cause is shm\n why lhc complaint shoul d not he dismissed.'' It is. ho\vevcr. not necessary for a plaintiff to actually obtain a c.kfoult judgmenl ·within one year to avoid dismissal hut rather it is enough that thc plaintiffti1m:ly lakcs prcliminar) steps toward a default judgment foreclosure and sal~ hy moving for an order or rden.:nce to cstablish tbat it initiated proceedings for entry of'_judgment (C' PLR 3215(<:): /l'ells Farp,o /Jank. N.:I . '" Comhs. 128 /\D3d 812. I 0 YS3d 121 (2"J Dept.. 2015)). ··As long as proceedings arc being taken which munilest an intent not to abandon the case but to seek a judgment. the action shlitil<l not bl.! subject to dismissal .. (/Jrmrn 1·. Rosedale /\'11neries. 259 AD2d 256. 686 NYS2d 22 ( 1' 1 Dept.. 199v): / lurom I.mm Sen·ices. LLC 1·. (iros.\. 1.W /\D3<l 77'2. NY Slip Op 03691 (2 11J Dept.. 201(>)). Where no motion is intcrposc<l within the one )Car time limitation perind. a plaintiff i~ requ in.:<l to establish '"sullieient cause.. ''hy the complaint should not be dismissed which requires a showing or a reasonable excuse for the delay and or a potentially mcriwrious C<tlL'iC ol'action (see lt'el/s Fargo /Junk. NA. 1•. IJonanno. 146 /\D3d 8-+4. 2Cl7 NY Slip Op 002 I I (2"J Dept.. 20 17): Mospeth Federal Sc11•i11gs & /,ou11 Association 1•. /Jmok/y11 lleriWJ.!e. U .( ·. 138 /\D3d 793. 28 YS3d 325 (111' 1 Dept.. 10 16): Aurora Loon Sen·ices. /,/,(' '" I l(vo. 130 /\ 1)3d 7(>3. 13 l YS3d 554 (2 11J Dept., 2015 ): l'ipinim \'. ./. ,)'ackaris & Sons. Inc .. I 16 /\0 3d 749. 983 1YS2d 587 (211' 1 Dept.. 2014): (ii~lio \'. ,\'T/.\IP. Inc: .. 86 /\D3<l 301. 926 ' YS2d 546 (2 11d Dept.. 2011 ): l•:ol/Jl \'. fri-.\'/afc> llord1roods. Ltd.. 92 /\D3d 642. C)J 7 YS2d 865 C:~nJ l kpl.. 2012)). The dctermination or whether an cxcusc is reasonable in any givl.!n instance is com milted to the discretion orthc motion court (//,\'/J(' 8011k (,S,.J. N...t. v. Grella. 145 AD3d 669.44 NYS3d 56 (2"J Dept.. 20 I (l): i\Iaspeth Federnl Slf\•ings & /,ow1 1/ssoci111io11 '" /Jrookly11 llerifage. U.( '. s111>m.)). Delays auri hutablc to the parties part ici pat ion in mandatory sctOemcnt con lcn.:necs nr in Ii Ligation communications. discovery. motion practice and olhcr pre-trial proceedings have bcen l eld to neg.ate ;my intent ion to abandon th!.! action and arc excusable under CPLR 3115( c )(.\"('<.' l!S/3(' !Jank lf,\:·1. .\'..I. '" (ire/la. s11prn.: /Jmoks 1·. •\onu!rsf!f Swxirnl Associates. l 06 J\DJd 624. 9(l6 YS2d 65 C:~".i Dept.. 20 13 ): f,l1011rclukis ''· ·rorres. 98 /\D3d 892. 950 YS2d 703 (I'' Dept.. 2012)). or 0 ( 'our! records re.: veal that th~ dekndant ,.._·as served with the summons and complaint pursuant lo CPl.R 308(4) r·nail and mail .. ) on October I. 2009 with filing completed on Oetol:K'r 7. 2009. l)cli.:ndanl defo11ltcd in appearing Ill thi s action hy !'ailing to scrvl.! an answer within thirty days ul'the completion or service on Odohcr 17. 200<J. Court rceords indicate that plaintiffs representative appemed for a court nwndalcd scl!lcmcnt conlCrcnccs on March 30. 20 I 0 . .lune I 0. 20 I 0 and 1\ugust -1. 2010. and that Lhc dcrcndant dc ';1ultcd in appe:iring on August -L 2010. causing this action to he rekrrcd to an l/\S Part as an act in: mortgage foreclosure action. On I >ccemher 30. 20 I~ tht! clerk· s onicc pur~cd this action b ~ marking it off the active calendar. l"hc initial issue to IK' dctcrmim.:d is ddi;nda111·s cross motion concerning \\'hether !he action sholl ld bc dismissed as abandoncd pursuant to CPI .R 32 I 5(c). sinct: such a finding \\ou ld rcndcr :1cade111ic lh<: plaintitrs dditult judgment motion. The slatulc required plainli lo st:ck a tkfr1ult iudgmcnl prior to Nm cn1hcr I(>. 2010. unless sunicicnl cause is sho\\ln why the rn111plai11t should 1Hil he dismissl.!d. <'ase la\\ rl·quircs a sh()\\ ing or a reasonable excuse and a mcrittirious claim (s!'L' 115-.JI .1..·r.. llhu11,· l/oldi11g ( 'orp. 1· l:.slutc of llu/'/'i.\<Jll. 71f\l).ld65.1. 894 NYS2d 8% (2'i.1 Depl.. :10 I 0): C:rna11 She<'f1J/('f<1l l'rnt!11c:ts /11c. 1-. IJ. N. l·i·ies & ,·/ssocictf<'.,. Inc.. 8.1 1\ D.ld (J45. 919 NYS2d 873 (2 11' 1 Dcpt.. 2011 ): Fir.,! \'otim1ll'icle Hunk\'. J>rcrd 2-+0 AD2d (J29. 659 ' YS2d 29 1 (2"'1 Dept.. rr 1997)). -3- [* 4] Plaintiff attributes its dt.:lay ·n seeking jmlgmenl lo a prolonged effort to comply with administrative orders enac.:t<:d during this tinw pcrio<l. coupled with additional complications in com pi I ing. the required con lirmation or accuracy of the documents maintained by the mortgage lender resulting from a change in mortgage loan servicer in June. 2013. The initial Chief /\dministrative Judge«~ Order (/\0/548110) requiring: plaintifrs attorney. in certain mort;age IC.1redosurc acti(111s. lo submit an at'innation confirming the accuracy of the claims set forth in the complaint was issued on October 20. 20 I 0. Shortly thereafter. that /\dministrati vc Order \\41S replaced by n second order (/\0/43 · /11 ). which revised the form for the required attorney artirmation. 1'11is :-;ccond /\dministralivc Order was i:-;sued on Mardi 2. 20 11. In August. 2013. CPI ,R :rn 12-h li.trther amcnckd the certification n.:quircmcnts in mortgage foreclosure actions. There is no question but that these required certifications, imposed \\ithin a month ofthc one year period v.ithin \\hich plaintiff could have sought a dcfaultju<lgmcnt. caused signilicant delay in the proSL'<.:ution ol' then pcnding mortgage foreclosure actions. By requiring attorney allim1ations to <.:crtily lhl.! ac<.:urncy of thc allegations set forth in con1plaints. counscl for mortgage lenders wcrc obligated to take the time to obtain access to original documents({) verify each of the significant contentions set forth in the foreclosure complaints. The imposition orthesc requirements imposed a duty on bank attorneys to con!inn the accuracy of any papers suhmilled in support or an application for judgment and provide a reasonable explanation for delay in seeking an order of relcrence in this <.:asc, particularly in view ol'thc initial imposition or the original Administrative Order on Cktohcr 10. 2010 and the status ol'this thl.!n pending action, which had only months earlier been the subject or a scttkmcnt conference (/\ugust. 20 I 0) and which was eleven months afi.cr defendant's Jefaull.. Moree)\ er. plainti IT has submitted <d<litional proof providing a reasonable excuse for the dcla). hase<l upon the fact that the initial mortga5c servicer (Chase) Lhat \AUS auempting to aid counsel to obtain the required \eriJications was n.:placc<l in June. 2013 by the current mortgage scrvicer. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. rcsu It ing in further <lt.:lay. /\s to the required showing or n meri Lorio us c laim. the evidcncc is undisputed that the dctCndant has not made a payment due under the terms or the mortgage and note since September. 2008. Based upon these (;ircumstanccs the plaintiff has suhmillcd sunieicm evidence that ~ulTicient cause exists to show \\hy the complaint should not be dismissed (.we .·l11roru /,<Jml Se/'\'in:s. U .C· 1·. (iross. I 39 /\D3d 772. 32 NYS3d 249 (2'l<l Dept.. 20)())). With respect to pluintilrs application to rcstore this action as an a<.:li\'(.! foreclosure case. court records indicate that this acti <'ll was administrutivcly purged by the clerk on I kccmber 30. 201.+. Such administrati,·c acti\'ily cannot dismiss an action pursuant lo CPLR 3-H>-l \\'here no nntc ol'issuc has hcc11 likd since such pre-note cases arc the subject or the requirements orCPLR 3216 11 (se<' !Je11tsc'he i\'utioiwl IJuJ1k /'ms! Co 1-. Co/Ion. 147 /\D:ld 1020. .+6 NYS:ld 913 (2 .1 Dept.. 201 7): llankl lnitet! '" l\hey/('ts. 2017 WL 212<).+24. 2017 Y Slip Op 03923 ('.2"'1 Dept.. 2017)). No has is thc rc forc exists to deny plaintirrs motion to restore the action as ~111 activc foreclosure case particularly in\ iC\\. of the foci that tlK·rc has been no prejudice resulting from the delay in <.:asc :1<.:ti,·ity. Fi1wll~· '' ith n.:spcd to plaintilrs motion for a dcfoult judgmcnt and the appointment ol a rclcree. plaintifflrns suhmiued eviden<.:c tn provt: the bank·s rnlillcment lo a <.kfi1ult judgment. The -;11hmissio11 ol' an artidavit from the mortgage scrvic.:cr·s \ice president satisfies the business records c:-.ccplion to the hearsay rule and establishes the fact that the dclcndanl has dcfoultcd t11Hkr the tertll-; or the monµagc by foiling tn make . imcl~ monthly mortgage payments since October I. 2008 (see --l- [* 5] SRMOF II 1012-1'fr11st1·. 'Ji!l/a. l J9 Ad3d 599. :n NYS3d 25 ( l ' 1 Dept.. 2016): /Jank <?/Ne11· fork i\le/1011 1· 'liwwe. 1.19 J\D3d I 009. 32 NYS3d 283 (2"'1 Dept.. 2016)). !"he hunk. having proven entitlement to a default judgment. it is incumbent upon the dcl'cndant to submit relevant. evidentiary proof suniciently substantive to raise genuine issues of fact concerning v. hy the lender is not entitled to foredosi.:: the mortgage. Defendant has wholly failed to do so. lkfcmlant hus not suhmiltcu an affidavit in opposition to the plaintiffs motion denying his default in making payments due under the; terms of mortgages and promissory note and therefore rlaintifr-; motion must he granted. J\cwrdingly. tklcndanrs cross motion is denied and plaintifrs motion seeking an order granting a defoult judgment and for tbc appointment or a referee must be granted. The proposed order for the appointment or a referee has been signed simultaneously with the execution of this order. Hon. Howard H. Heckman Jr. Dated: May 3 I. 20 I 7 J.S.C. -5-

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.