Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Lorig

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Lorig 2017 NY Slip Op 31271(U) June 9, 2017 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 602484/2015 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] Shon l'orm Order SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK !AS PART 18 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PR E SE N T: HON. HOWARD H. HECKMAN, JR., J.S.C. ----------------------------------------------------------------)( Tl IE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, AS TRUSTEE FOR CIT MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1 , Plaintiffs, INDEX NO.: 602484/2015 MOTION DATE: 06123/2016 MOTION SEQ. NO.: 002 MG 003 MD PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNE Y: DAVIDSON FINK, LLP 28 EAST MAIN ST., STE. 1700 ROCHESTER, NY 14614 DEFENDANT ATTORNEY: -againstJON LORIG, DIANE MADONIA-CLARO, CHRISTOPHER THOMPSON, ESQ. 33 DAVIDSON LANE EAST WEST ISLIP, NY 11795 Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------)( Upon Lhe following papers numbered I to 24 read on this motion : Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause and supporting papers 1-8 (#002) : Notice of Cross Motion and supporting papers 9-19 (#003) ; Answering AffidaviLS and supporting papers 20-22 : R..:plying Affidavics and supporting papers 23-24 : Other_ : (and after hearing courisel in support and opposed to che motion) it is. ORDERED that this motion by plaintiff the Bank of New York Mellon, seeking an order: 1) granting a default judgment; 2) substituting Francesca Horton, Christopher Horton and Gabriella Potente-I lorton as named party defendants in place and stead of defendants designated as "John Doc" and "Mary Doe" and discontinuing the action against the remaining defendants designated as ".John Doe'" and "Mary Doc''; 3) deeming all 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 Real Estate Defect Spet:ialists. Ltd., seeking an order pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(3)&(7), 3212. 30 I 2(d). 32 l5(d) & 5015 granting summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint or, in the alternative. granting defendant leave lo vacate its default in serving an answer and permitting defendant leave to serve a late answer is denied; and it is further ORDER E D that plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this order amending the caption upon the Calendar Clerk of the Court; and it is fu1iher ORDE R E D that plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this order with notice of entry upon all parties who have appeared and not waived further notice pursuant to CPLR 2103(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. [* 2] Plainli IT s action seeks lo foreclose a mortgage in the sum of $233.600.00 executed h) ddendunts Jon Lorig and Diani.! Mac.Ionia Cairo on October I I. 2005 in favor o r BNC Mortgage. Inc. On the same date both c.ldcndants executed a promissory note promising lo re-pay the entire amount or the indebtedness to the lcnd1.:r. The mortgage and note were later assigned lo the plainli ff The Hank or New York :vlcl Ion on I·\~brnary 19. 1014. Plaintiff claims that the dcl"cndants de faulted in making timcJy monthly mortgage payments since April I. 20 13. Pl aintiff commenced this action by filing the summons :md complaint on March 13. 20 15. l3oth mortgagor delcndants thereafter tkfaultcd in serving an answer. Records indicate that defendant Real Estate Defect Specialist. Ltd. ( REDS) obtai ned title to the mortgaged premises from the mortgagors by deed dated August 28. 1014. The purchase price rcllcclcd in County Clerk records indicates that REDS paid to the owners the sum of $3000.00. Dclcndanl REDS also defaulted in serving a timely answer. Plainti Jr s motion seeks un order granling a default judgment and for the appointment of a n::krec lo compute the sums due and owing to the lender. In opposition and in support of its cross motion. defendant Real Estate l)cfocl Specialist. Ltd. submi ts un affidavit from its president and claims that this court lacks jurisdict ion over the movant based upon plaimiff s failure lo serve the su mmons and complaint in compliance with Business Corporation Law 306 requirements. De fondant REDS president" s affidavit states thal REDS never received the summons and complaint. Defendant also claims that e ven were the courl to dclennine that plaintiff obtained personal j urisdiction over REDS. thal it should be permilled lo serve and fik a lme answer since delendant" s attempt to serve a timely answer was only four days !ale. Defendant claims that since pl ainti IT foiled lo seek a default judgment within one year or dcfcndant 's default in answering the complaint the uction must be dismissed Counsel also claims that pluintiJT's motion must be denied and the complaint should be dism issed based upon: I ) plaintiffs lack standing lo prosecute this action: 2) plainti ff' s failure to sub11"1it admissible proof to establish de fondant's defauh and service of the mor1gagc and RP /\ Pl. 1304 90-day pre-foreclosure default notices on the borrowers and service or RP /\ Pl. 1303 notices on the individual tcnanls residing al the premises: and 3) plaintirrs violation of the New York Banking Law 6-L & 6M. Counsel asserts that if the complaint is not dismissed that the delendanl shou ld be granted leave to serve a late answer. or The proponent or a S U!lllllary judgment moti on musl make a prima focic showing or cn titlc111c111 to judµ ment as a matter of lavv. tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material question or fact from the case. The grant or summary judgment is uppropriate only when it is clear 1hal no material and triable issues of foct have been presented (Sil/111a11 " · T1r1!11fie1h ( ·e111w:P-Vo.r Fi/111 ('mp.. 3 NY~d 395 ( 1957)). The moving party hears !he initial burden of proving entitlement to summary judgment ( lf'i11egmcl , .. XU ' Medical< 'enter. 6.f Y2<l 85 1 { 1985 )). Once such proor has been prof!i:red. the burden shi lis to the opposi ng party \\·ho. to dclcat the motil>n. must o n~r e\·idcnce in admissible form. and must set li.>rlh surtic iclll l~tcl s to require a trial nn an) issue or foci (Cl>l.R 32 I 2(b): /.11ckcm11u11 r. City r?f"Ne11· rork. .fC) Y2d 557 ( l 980)). Sumnrnry judgmem shall only be granted in favor or the 1rnwanl when there arc no issues or material foct and the evidence requir1.:s the court In dirl'Ct a judgment in favor or the movant as a matter or law ( l•'riC'nds <~{:111i111e1/s 1·.• (ssuciolecl Fur ,\ /01111/it<'tlfrc•rs. .f(> NY2d I065 ( 1979)). Entitkmrnt lo sumnwry judgment in fornr of the foreclosing plaintiff is established prima foe ic b~· 1111: plai nti Ir s product ion or lhe mortgage and unpaid n ot~. and e' it.knee or de1:1ult in paym1.:nl (see Wells Forgo He111k. 1 .:1. 1·. f;rohoho. 127 AD3d 117(>. 9 YS3d 3 12 (~"'1 Dept.. 20 I)): \ -1- [* 3] ll'el/s htrgo Bunk. N.,.I. 1•. Ali. 121 /\D3d TJ.6. 995 YS2d 735 (2"'1 Ocpt., 2014 )). Where the plaintirt~s standing is placed in issue by the <lcfl!ndanrs answer. the plaintiff must also establish its -;tanding as part or its prima facic sho"·ing (Aurora loan Serl'ices 1·. Taylor. 15 NY3d 355. 11 NYSJ<l 612 (2015): /,owJCan.! 1·. Firshing. 130 J\()3d 787. 14 NYS3d 410 (211J Dept.. '.2015): lfS/JC Hunk (i,\:/. N.A. 1•. Baptiste. 118 /\D3cl 77. 10 NYS3d 255 (2"J Dept.. 2015)). In a foreclosure action. a plaintiff has standing if" it is either the holder or. or the assignee or. the unc.k:rlying note at the time that the a<.'t inn is commenced (Aurora /,oa11Sen•ices1>. Taylor. .rnpra.; 1~·111ig,ran1 /Jank 1·. /,uri::.::.a. 129 /\D3d 9-L 13 YS3d 129 (2"' 1 Dept.. 2015) ). Either a written assignment of the noll! or the physical transfer of the note to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action is <;uflicient to transf"cr the obligation and to provide standing (Wells Fargo Bunk. N. ..t. 1•. Parker. 125 /\D3d 848. 5 NYS3d 130 (21l<l Dept.. 2015): U.S. Bank. NA. 1·. Guy. 125 AD3d 845. 5 >JYS3d 116 (2"J Dept.. 20 15) ). /\ plainti rr s attachment of a duly indorsec.I mortgage note to its complaint coupled with an al'lidavi t or certi Ii cation in which it alleges that it had possession of the promissory note prior to comnH::nccment of'tlw action constitutes due proof of' the plaintiffs stanc.ling to prosecute its claim ltff l'oreclosurc and sale (see Nationstar MortxaKe. /,/,(' 1•. C'atizone. 127 /\D3d 1151, 9 NYS3d 315 (1"'1 Dept., 20 15) ). /\ <.lefcndant seeking to vacate its default in appearing in an action and seeking leave to serve a late answer must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate a potentially meritorious dclcnse (see /:'u~ene /Ji Loren::o. Inc. 1·. , I. ( '. Dut1on Lhr.. C·o. 6 7 N Y2d 138. 50 I NYS2d 8 ( 1986): De11tschc: Bank National 7/"ust ( 'o. '" (iutierre::. 102 AD3d 825, 958 NYS2d 4 72 (2'~1 Dept., 2013); U.S. Uu11k. NA. v. Samuel. 138 AD3d 1105. 30 NYS3d 305 (211(1 Dept.. 2016): TCIF RFO (;CM. LLC 1·. Walk<'!'. 139 /\D3d 704. 31NYS3d223 (2"d Dept.. 20 16)). However. absent proper service of' the summons and complaint upon a defendant. a court lacks j uri sdiction and the complaint must be dismissed without the need to demonstrate an arguably meritorious defense (C' PLR 5015(4): J>rude11c:e 1·. Wright. 94 AD3d 1073. 943 1 YS2d 185 (21\(1 Dept..2012>: l~111ign1111 .\ fortgage Company i·. /Vestenelt. I 05 J\D3d 896. 964 YS2d 543 (2nJ Dept.. 2013 ): Deutsche Ba11k .\'ational lrnsl ( 'o. 1·. l'es1w10. 71 J\D3d I 074. 899 "YS2d 269 ('.2 11J Dept. ... 20 I 0)). Ordinarily a process server.. s anidavit or service constitutes prima facie evidence of proper servic1.: (U.S. Bank. N..' I. 1·. Tau her. 140 A D3d I 154. J(, N YS3d J 44 (2"J lkpl.. 2016 ): /· F-1. Inc:. 1·. l<c:id 138 /\D3d 922. 31 NYSJd l 19 (2"11 DepL :?.0 16): lt'uclun·ia /Jank 1·. Ciree11lwr,l!,. 1:\8 /\D3d 984. 31 NYS3d 110 (2'" 1 lkpt.. 2016): MUV·; 1·. /,osrn. 125 AD3d 733, 5 NYS3d 112 (:2'"1 D1.:pt.. 20 15): N H'TI. ,._ "/'.\'(//t1ti11os. 101 /\D3d 1092. 956 NYS2d 571 (2'"1 Dept.. 2012)). /\ dcli;ndant ma~ re hut the process scn·er" s anidavil by suhmilling. an arti<lavit containing spccilic and detailed contradictions of the daims in the process scrve1.. s affidavit. hut bare. conclusory and unsuhstantiatc<l denials or scn·icc an: insunicient lo n:hut the presumption of proper service ( l '.S. IJ011k. .\'..1. 1· f><'rnlta. 1-t2 /\ D3c.I 988. 37 YS3d 308 (2"J Dept.. 2016 ); ll'as!ti11g1011 i\1111 ual /Jonk '" l/11ggi11s. 140 /\D3d 858. 35 YS3d 127 (2',,1 Dept.. 10 16): lt'ells /·argo /Jank. N.:l. 1·. Christie. 83 /\I Ud 82-1, 921 NYS2d 127 (1"'1 Dept.. 20 l I); U..r.. ·. Hank. .V.:I. 1•. Tale. 102 AD3d 859. 958 NYS2d 72'2 (2'"1 Dept.. 2011 ): /3e11c'.ficiul I /0111eo1r11ers S<'rl'. ('or/>.. ''· Uirmt!t. <>O /\ D3d 98..+. 875 N YS2d 815 (2"'1 Dept.. 2009) ). Ddi.:ndan:·s (Rl·:nsi cross motion :;l'eks !o :1ssert deknscs on its O\\ ll behalf and on bdwlf 1'!' the indiYidual delcndants 1mortgagor:-; and the individual tenants who reside in the premises. Ckarl~ as to those delcnses asserted b) REDS on hdialrorthc individual dckmJanls. no kg.al basis exists to ~rant dismissal orthc complaint based upon plaintilrs alleged foilurc to comp!) \\'ith Hanking I.aw -... ,_ [* 4] 6-1 , & 6-M and RP APL 1303 & I 304 and mortgage requirements related to service of the prcforeclosure notices of default. since those defenses are personal to the individual dcfrndants/mortgagors and individual defendant/tenants (see Wells Fargo Bank 1·. /Jrmie. 89 /\D3d 931 . 932 NYS2d 702 (2"u Dept.. 20 I I): Nr Cf'/, 1996-1 frust v. King 13 AD3d 429. 787 IYS2d 61 (2"'1 Dept. 2004)). Movant is without legal capacity to assert those defenses since they arc personal to those defendants and can only he asserted by those individual ddendants. The record rewals that REDS ohtained title to the mortgaged premises for the sum of $3000.00 by deed dated August 28. 2014. In this respect. while the defendant may have purchased title to the dwelling for this minirnal amount (nncl prcsumahly is profiting from the purchase hy having the ability to rent the premises). REDS did not --purchnse·· the defenses the defaulting borrowers may have been ent itled to assert: REDS' --purchase .. merely had the eflect or foreclosing the mortgagors from seeking to assert those delcnsi.!s. With respect to the c laims asserted on behalf of the defendant REDS itsclf'conccrning lack of jurisdiction, abandonment and for permission to vacate its default and to serve a late answer, the <lcfCndant has failed to submit sufficient credible, admissible evidence to suppo11 these claims. As to jurisdict ion, the alfolavit or the process server constitutes prima facic evidence of proper service or the summons and complaint upon defondant REDS by service upon the Secretary of State on Apri I 8. 2015. I laving established a prima facie showing ofjurisdiction over tbe defendant pursuant to Business Corporation Law 306. it is incumbent upon the defendant to rebut the showing by submi ssion of specific and substantive evidence regarding lack of service. The affidavit submitted by the defendant containing two seemingly contradictory statements to the effect that the summons and complaint was either not received or was received at an incorrect address by mail provides no credible proof to rebut the showing of due service upon it. No legal basis therefore exists to dismiss the complaint for failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over REDS (see Wells Fargo Hank. NA . r. 'li·imrico. I 39 AIX~d TJ.2, 32 NYSJd 213 (211t1 DcpL 20 16): lndy /\ fac Bank 1•. I /y111011. 74 t\D3<l 75 l. 901 NYS2d 545 (2 11.i Dept.. 2010)). 1 I laving failed to provide any reasonable excuse !'or its delay in serving an answer. it is unnecessary to consider whether the defendant has demonstrated the existence of an arguably meritorious del'ense to the li:>reclosure complaint (iJeufsche Bank .Notional Ti·11s1 ( ·o. 1·. Rudman. 80 /\. D3<l 651. 914 N YS2d 6 T2 (2"'' DcpL 2011 ): Deutsche Bonk National Trnst ( 'o. 1-. ( i111ierre:::. J 02 AD3d 825. 958 NYS2d 472 (2 d Dept. 2013): Deutsche /Jank Nurional Tntsl Co. ,._ Pie1ra11im. 102 AD3d 724. 957 NYS2d 868 (21111 Dept.. 2013): Wells Fargo Bonk. NA. 1-. Russell. 101AD3d8<)0. 955 NYS2d 654 (2'"1 Dept., 2012)). Moreover. ever were the court lo consider the prnpose<l de lenses sought to be asserted. none or the defenses (which include lack or standing and l'ailure to serve prcl'orcc..:lo:-;un: tl(ltic..:cs ot"dcfoult) raised in opposition to plaintirrs motion arc meritorious since thl.! dc1l:11da11t waived its lack or standing dell:nsc by defaulting in serving an answer (see I !SH<· !Jank (iS,. J 1-. :lngc:les. 1-U ADJd 67 L 38 NYSld 580 (2 11.i Dept.. 2016): Narionslar Mortgage: I,/,( · i·. . /l·ellu. 142 AD3d 59-1-, 36 NY S3d 679 (2 11J Dept.. 2016 ): LJonk of" 1 Ve1r fork l/·11s1 ( 'o.. JV. A. r. <'hic:jinu. 1-C AD3d 570. J() NYSJd 512 (2"'1 Dept.. 201 (>): U. S /Jank. N. :I. 1·. (i1rlle.1 '. U 7 AD3tl 1008. 27 NYS3d C>OI (1"(1 Dept.. 20 1(1): Fe 'J)IJ FF/ 2008-1 Trrrst r . l'idejus. 13 l /\.D3d J 00-1-. 17 N YSJd 5-1-(2'"1 Dept.. 2015): Sourhstur Ill././,(' 1·. 1':1111ie1111e. 120 J\D3d 1>32. 9<)2 NYS'.2d 558 (2"'1 I kpt.. "1() 14 ); 8 .f( ' I lo111e I oa11,· Sc11 ·1·ic'i11g. I /> ,._ Rcun /n11. 132 Ir'd 790, I~ 1YSld 6f).:l ('.1'"1 I kp1 201 5 ): I,.ell.' Forgo Hunk tlli1111.. N .-/. i·. 1'/ustropaolo. -1-2 A D3d 239, 8:n N YS2u 24 7 (2"'1 Dept.. 2007 )). h)rcover. even were the court lo consider the underlying merit s o l"plaintilrs sl<lnding. the cvid1.:11c..:e suhmillcd in the frmn of an anidaYil frnm lhc mortgage s crvice1" s mlthori/.ed signatory 11 --1-- [* 5] dated l·ebruary 25. 20] 6 provides SU fficient evidence to prove that the plainli ff retains possession of the original promisso1)· note and ha<l possession prior to the date tht: action was commenced. This evidence. coupled with the fact that the note was affixed to the complaint. provides more than nmplc proof of plaintitrs standing to prosecute this action (see Wells Fargo Rank. NJ "· 1Y10111as. 20 17 1 Slip Op o.n 18 (2"J Dept.. 2017): FNMA''- fokaputr~ II. Inc.. 14 1 AD.1d 506. 35 NYS3d 236 y (2"'1 Dept.. 20 16): JPMorgan Chase, .. Weinherger. 1-12 J\D3d 643. 37 YS3d 286 ('.:! 11J Dept.. 2016 ): /\'utionstur 1•. Ccmtbme. 127 ;\J))d 1151. 9NYS3d115 (2"J Dept.. 20 15 )). With respect to defendant' s claims concerning the plaintiff's alleged failure to scrvt: mortgage an<l statutory pre-foreclosure notices. as set forth above this defendant is without capm:ity to assert these defenses since it is not a signatory to the note or mortgage and on ly the individual mortgagor defendants and/or tenant defendants have the right to contest foreclosure on these grounds. Moreover, even were the court to permit REDS to assert these defenses and conceding delendanr s claim that ordinari ly s~rvice of such notices are considered conditions precedent to a mortgage foreclosure action (A zirora f,olm Serl'ices. LLC v. Weish/um. 85 A03c.I 95. 923 N YS2d (>09 (2"J Dept.. 20 11 ); First National Bank(?/"( ·hica~o 1•. Silver, 73 AD3d 162, 899 NYS2d 256 (211' 1 Dept.. 20 I 0)). the failure to comply with suc h provisions arc not jurisdictional defects sufficient to provide indcpendent grounds to vacate a default by a party who has otherwise defaulted in appearing in an action (l!S. !Jank. NA . '" Carey. 137 J\D3d 894, 28 YS3d 68 (2"'1 Dept.. 2016); !'HI! Mortgage ( 'orp. 1·. ('elestin. 130 /\D3d 703. 11 NYS3d 871 (211.i Dept., 2015); l'rirchurd 1·. Curtis. 101 AD3d 1502. 957 NYS2d 440 (3r•1 Dept., 2012); Deutsche !Junk National frust Co. v. l'o.rn<'I'. 89 /\D3d (>74. 933 YS2d (2".i Dept., 20 11)). In this case. the defendant has failed to provide any reasonable excuse for its failure to timely serve an answer an<l the mere showing of an arguably meritorious dcrense (1.e. plaintiffs alleged failure to timely serve pre-foreclosure notices of default ) is legally insunicient to provi<le grounds to set aside it5 continuing default in appearing. in thi s action (Flagsfar Hank'" .Jamhelli. 1.JO /\D3d 829. 32 NYS3d 625 (2m1 Dept..2016): Pr;rclwrd,·. Cwtis, supra.: IVassatheil ,,_ Whurg, 94 AD3d 753. 941NYS2d679 (2 111~ Dept., 2012)). Moreover, even were the court to also consider the merits or service of the default notices and the RP /\PL 1303 notice. plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence to establish that these notices were timely and properly served pursuant to the requirements of RPl\PL 1303 & 1.304 (3). As to dclcn<lant Rl ~ DS · daim that plninti fr s default judgment motion was abandoned as :i rt:sttlt of nut being timel y made within one year of thc <ldendant· s dcfoult. the rcwr<l shows that <lclcndant's dcfou h occurred on May 8. 20 15 and that plaintiff ma<le its initial application for an onkr of reference (which "as subsequent ly '' ithdrawn) on /\pri I IJ. 2016- prior to expiration or the one year period required pursuant to CPLR 3~ 1 5 . Based upon plaintitrs timely submission nfthat application within one year or the dcfi.:n<lanr s dcl(nilt. no basis exist.s to di smi ss the complaint as abandoned as deJincd pursuant to CPLR 32 I 5(c) (see Wells Fargo /Jonk. N.11. '" /)uskal. 142 1 \DJ <l 1071. 37 NYS3 t.l 353 (2"" Dept... 20 16): U..\'. /Junk. N:I. 1·. /)orestanl. 131/\D3d 4(,7. 15 IYS3d J ..Q (2"J Dept.. 20 I 5 ): ,,.ells Forgo /Jank. N. ..1. 1·. Comhs. 128 !\ l)Jd 8 I 2. I 0 YS3d 121 (2".i Dept.. 20 15 ): ,\/f:'/?.\' 1 Smith. 111 .1\D3d80.J.975 YS2d 121 (211.i Dcpt.. 20U)). ·. With respc<.:t to plaintirr s motion for a defoultjudg1rn:nt and the appointment ora rcfl:n.·c to c.: ompute tht: sums du<.: and tm i ng lo the m nrt~agc lender. plain ti ff has subm i lled su lfo:icnt cv idcnn: in the form or an afli<lavit rrom the mortgage Sl'I'\ ice provi<ler which sati sries the business records cxc.:ept ion lo the hearsay rule and wh ich she)\\ s that the delcndants han.' defaulted under the terms or thl· parties morlgagL' loan agreement b~ foiling to make timcl) monthly payments sinel.' April I. -5- [* 6] 20 I:;. As the Appellate Division. Second Department. most recently ruled in IVe/ls Fargo Bank. 1·. Tlwmus. ,\l/fJrU. (Ma) 3 J. 2017). prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law is established in a roreclosurc action by submission of the mortgage. the promissory note and an alfalavit from a mortgage loan serviccr·s employee attesting to the default in payment. Such t1.:stimony from the loan servicer·s rcprescntmive docs not require personal knowledge of the plaintilrs rccor<l-keeping practicl:!s and procedures when the Joan scrvicer's representative attests, pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule (CPLR 4518), that the records reflect the ddcntlanrs tlelault ( IVel/s FurJ!,o Bank. N. A. ' '· Thomus. supra: Citi?,roup 1·s. Kopelo11·i1:. 147 l\l)Jd JOJ4. 48 IYSJ<l 223 (2"J Dept.. 2017)). .\ .·I. The bank. having proven entitlement to a default judgment. it is incumbent upon the dc!Cn<lant to submit relevant. evidcntiary proor sufficiently substantive to raise genuine issues of fact concerning why the mortgage lender is not entitled to foreclose. Defendant has not submitted any evidence lo contradict the fact that the original mortgagors who have defaulted in appearing in this action have failed to make timely mo11gage payments since J\.priJ , 2013. J\.ccorclingly the plaintiff is entitled to an award orjudgmenl. Defendant's cross motion is denied and plaintitrs motion for an order grunting a ddault judgment and for the appointment or a referee to compute the sums due and owing lo the plaintiff is gramed. The proposed order appointing a rcforee has been signed simul taneously with the execution or this order. Dated: June 9. 2017 Hon. Howard H. Heckman Jr~ .l.S.C.

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.