Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Fabiani

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Fabiani 2017 NY Slip Op 32006(U) September 8, 2017 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 26481-2013 Judge: Robert F. Quinlan 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] INDEX No. 26481-2013 SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK l.A.S. PART 27 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: Hon. ROBERT F. QUINLAN Justice of the Supreme Court MOTION DATE: 04/26/2016 SUBMIT DATE: 05/25/ 17, 0610812017 Mot. Seq.: # 001 - MG ------------------------------------------------------X WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Plaintiff, - against STACI FABIANI, STEVEN FABIANI, AMERICAN EXPRESS, CENTURION BANK, and "JOHN DOES" and "JANE DOES", etc. ROSICKI, ROSICKI & ASSOC. Attorneys.for Plaintiff 26 Harvester A venue Batavia, NY 14021 FRANK J. ROMANO, ESQ. Attorney for Defendant Staci Fabiani 51 East Main Street, Smithtown, NY 11787 Defendant(s). ------------------------------------------------------)( Upon the following papers read on this motion by plaintiff for summary judgment, dismissing the affinnative defenses, fixing the default of non-answering defendants, appointment of a referee pursuant to RPAPL § 1321, to correct and reform a scrivener's error in the mortgage and to amend the caption; plaintiffs notice of motion, affirmations of counsel, affidavit of an employee of plaintiff and attached exhibits; affirmation in opposition of defendant Staci Fabianj's counsel; affirmation in reply of plaintiff's counsel and attached exhlbit; it is, ORDERED that this motion by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. for summary judgment, dismissing the answer of defendant Staci Fabiani, correcting and refonning a scrivener's error in the mortgage, amending the caption, fixing the default of the non-appearing, non-answering defendants, and for an order of reference pursuant to RP APL§ 1321, is granted; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiff's application to amend the caption of the action is granted, and the caption shall read as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------X WELLS FARGO BANK, N .A. Plaintiff, - against - STACI FABIANI, STEVEN FABIANI, AMERICAN EXPRESS and CENTURION BANK . Defendant(s). --------------------------------------------------------------------X plaintiff is to serve a copy of this order upon the Calendar Clerk within 30 days of this date and all further proceeding will be under the amended caption; and it is further [* 2] Wells Fago Bank v Fabiani Index No. 26481-2013 Page2 ORDERED that plaintiff's application to reform the legal description in the mortgage is granted, and the preamble to the mortgage is refonned as of April 13,2010 to state "February 5, 1963 as Map No. 3716, as Lot No. 16 .... " in place and instead of "21511983"; and it is further ORDERED that the plaintiffshall serve a copy of this order upon the Suffolk County C lerk within sixty ( 60) days of this order, and the Suffolk County Clerk shall cause a copy of this order, with the reformed language above, to be recorded with the mortgage herein, which has been recorded on 4/13/2010 under Mortgage Number DB001619, Liber M0002 I 937, Page 250, after the payment of such costs and fees as required by the Suffolk County Clerk; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiff's application for an order of reference pursuant to RP APL§ 1321 is granted upon the order submitted, as modified by the court; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiff is to include in any proposed order of judgment of foreclosure and sale language complying with the Suffolk County Local Rule for filing of the Suffolk County Foreclosure Surplus Monies form contained in Suffolk County Administrative Order# 41-13; and it is further ORDERED, that, if a prior notice of pendency is outdated, plaintiff is directed to file a successive notice of pendency at least. twenty (20) days prior to the submission of any proposed judgment of foreclosure and sale, submitting a copy thereof with proof of filing with any proposed judgment of foreclosure and sale; and it is further. ORDERED that within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff is to serve a copy of the order ofreference upon all parties who have appeared in this action, as well as upon the referee and thereafter file the affidavits of service with the Clerk of the Court; and it is further ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, plaintiff is to provide the refere·e all papers and documents necessary for him/her to perform the determinations required by this order, and prepare his/her report which referee's report is to be submitted to plaintiff within 30 days of receipt the papers and documents aforementioned; and it is further ORDERED that the referee is to serve notice upon defendant-mortgagor(s) of the hearing before the referee to compute the amount due to plaintiff (CPLR 43 I 3)~ and it is further ORDERED that plaintiff is to file an application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale within 120 days of the date of this order; and it is further ORDERED that this action shall be calendared for a status conference on Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 9:30 AM in Part 27 for the court to monitor the progress of this action. If a judgment of foreclosure and sale is filed with the court before that date, no appearance w ill be necessary; and it is further ORDERED that failure to comply with any term of this order will not form the basis for a motion to dismiss the action, but will be the subject of the status conference at which future compliance will be determined. This is an action to foreclose a mortgage upon residential real property located at 24 Nowick Lane, Smithtown, Suffolk County, New York (''the property") executed by Staci Fabiani and Steven Fabiani in favor of the original lender, Franklin First Financial, Ltd. ("Franklin") on March 25, 2010 to secure a note given to Franklin at the same time in the amount of $396,000 dollars. [* 3] Wells Fago Bank v Fabiani Index No. 26481-2013 Page3 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("plaintiff') commenced the action by filing a summons and complaint on October 1, 2013. Issue was joined by defendant Staci Fabiani ("defendant") filing her answer dated October 14, 2013. Defendant Steven Fabiani neither appeared nor answered. Nine conferences were held in the court's Foreclosure Settlement Conference Part ("FSC Part") between March 12, 2014 and December 9, 2015, and after the last conference the action was released from the part as "not settled." Compliance with CPLR § 3408 has been established. Upon the filing of the motion, the case was initially assigned to Acting Supreme Court Justice Daniel Martin, but was reassigned to this part by Administrative Order of District Administrative Judge C. Randall Hinrichs Plaintiff moves for summary judgment dismissing the affirmative defenses of defendant, treating her answer as a I imited notice ofappearance, fixing the default of the non-appearing, non-answering defendants, for appointment of a referee, amending the caption and to reform an error in the legal description in the n:iortgage. In deciding the motion the court has considered plaintiff's submissions in support consisting of attorneys' affirmations, an affidavit of an employee of plaintiff's servicer, Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC ("Rushmore"), and attached exhibits; defendant's counsel's affirmation in opposition with an attached exhibit, and plaintiff's counsel's reply affirmation with attached exhibits. CPLR § 3215 (c) CLAIM DENIED Although not representing defendant Steven Fabiani, nor cross-moving to dismiss, defendant's counsel argues that the claims against him must be dismissed because plaintiff failed to move upon his default within one year. A co-defendant has no ability to raise defenses personal to the other defendant, such as the requirements of service, statute or a condition of the mortgage, they are personal to the defaulting defendant who has failed to raise them (see Home Savings ofAmerica, F.A. v Gkianos, 233 AD2d 422 [2d Dept 1996]; NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v King, 13 AD3d 429 [2d Dept 2004]; Wells Fargo Bank v Bowie, 89 AD3d 931 [2d Dept 2011]; IMC Mgte Co v Vetere, 142 AD3d 954 [2d Dept2016]; Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Bachmann, 145 AD3d 712 [2d Dept 2016]). As the claim was raised by defendant's counsel in opposition, plaintiff's counsel properly addressed it in the reply, although defendant's counsel argues otherwise. Even if this had been raised by defendant Steven Fabian on a motion to dismiss based upon a claim of noncompliance with CPLR § 32 IS (c), the court would have denied such a motion. CPLR § 3215 (c) was enacted to dispose of abandoned cases and provides a saving provision to what is otherwise mandatory dismissal, allowing denial of such a motion, or the sua sponte duty of the court, by stating that the court "shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, ..., unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed." This saving provision has been applied when plaintiff's conduct has shown that there was no intent to abandon the complaint (see LNV Corp v Forbes, 122 AD3d 805 [2d Dept 2014]; US Bank National Assoc v Wolnerman, 135 AD3d 850 [2d Dept 2016]). Where the evidence shows merit to plaintiff's claim and sufficient cause for any alleged delay the court should not dismiss the action for failure to move forthe default within a year (see Bank ofNew York v Gray, 228 AD2d 399 [2d Dept I 996); LNV Corp. v Forbes, supra; Golden Eagle Capital Corp v Paramount Mtg Corp, 143 AD3d 438 [2d Dept 2016]). Here, plaintiff's submissions have established the merit of its claim. Sufficient cause for the delay in seeking a default is established when defendant Steven Fabiani's bankruptcy and the long negotiation period in the FSC Part are considered, additionally the court finds plaintiff's decision not to move forward on the default until moving for summary judgment against defendant is reasonable under the circumstances of the case, as well as an appropriate exercise in judicial economy and also establishes sufficient cause for the delay. The claim is dismissed. [* 4] Wells Fago Bank v Fabiani Index No. 26481-2013 Page4 NOTARIZATION SUFFICIENT Defendant's counsel's claim that the affidavit of merit submitted by an employee of plaintiff is insufficient because it was made out of state and was not in conformity with CPLR 2309 (a) and RPL § 299-a [1] is without merit. and dismissed. The out of state affidavit of notarization need merely conform substantially with the template set out to be adequate in RPL § 309 b [1] [2] (see Mid.first Bank v Agho,121 AD3d 343 [2d Dept 2014]). The court finds the affidavit and notarization here substantially complies. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES DISMISSED Defendant's opposition fails to raise any claims other than the two disposed of above. The submission provides no support for any of her affirmative defenses. The failure to raise and support pleaded affinnative defenses and counterclaims in opposition to a motion for summary judgment renders them abandoned and subject to dismissal (see Kuehne & Nagel Inc. v Baiden, 36 NY2d 539 [1975]; Kronick v L. P. Therault Co., Inc., 70 AD3d 648 [2d Dept 201 OJ; New York Commercial Bank v. J Realty F. Rockaway, Ltd. , I 08 AD3d 756 [2d Dept 2013); Starkman v. City ofLong Beach, 106 AD3d 1076 (2d Dept 2013); Katz v Miller, 120 AD3d 768 (2d Dept 2014)). Defendant's first through ninth and eleventh affinnative defenses are dismissed. Defendant's tenth affirmative defense raise the issue of plaintiffs standing to bring the action and is considered below and dismissed. SUMMARY JUDGMENT Entitlement to summary judgment in favor of a foreclosing plaintiff is established, prima facie, by plaintiffs production of the mortgage and the unpaid note, and evidence of default in payment (see Wells Fargo Bank, NA. v. Desouza, 126 AD3d 965 [2dDept2015]; Wells Fargo, NA v Erobobo, 127AD3dI176 [2d Dept2015]; Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Morgan, 139 AD3d 1046 [2d Dept2016]). If established by proof submitted in evidentiaryform, plaintiff has demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment (CPLR 3212; RP APL § 1321; see Federal Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v Karastathis, 237 AD2d 558 [2d Dept 1997]). The burden then shifts to defendants to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense (see Capstone Bus. Credit, LLC v lmperia Family Realty, LLC, 70 AD3d 882 [2d Dept 2010], Zanfini v Chandler, 79 AD3d 1031 [2d Dept 2010] ; Citibank, NA v Van Brunt Properties, LCC, 95 AD3d 115 8 [2d Dept 2012]). Defendants then must produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to demonstrate the existence ofa triable issue offact (see Washington Mut. Bank v Valencia, 92 AD3d 774 [2d Dept 2012); Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 (1985]). Defendants' answer and affirmative defenses alone are insufficient to defeat plaintiffs motion (see, Flagstar Bank v Bellafiore, 94 AD3d 1044 [2d Dept 2012]). Defendant's counsel's affinnation in opposition provides no personal knowledge of the facts nor does it provide evidence in admissible form in opposition, as such his affirmation is without probative value and insufficient to defeat the motion (see Zuckerman v City ofNew York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). In deciding the motion the court is to determine whether there are bonafide issues of fact and not to delve into or resolve issues of credibility (see Vega v Restani Corp., 18 NY3d 499 [2012]). Plaintiff's submissions have established the mortgage, unpaid note and evidence of defendant's default in payment, thereby demonstrating its entitlement to summary judgment. Where, as here, plaintiffs standing has been placed in issue by defendant's answer, plaintiff must also establish its standing as part of its prima facie showing (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Taylor, 25 NY3d 355 (20 I 5]; Loancare v. Firshing, 130 AD3d 787 [2d Dept 2015]; HSBC Bank USA, NA. v. Baptiste, 128 AD3d 773 [2d Dept 2015]). PLAINTIFF PROVED ITS STANDING Plaintiff has standing if it establishes that it was the holder of the note at the time the action was commenced [* 5] Wells Fago Bank v Fabiani Index No. 26481-2013 Pages (see Emigrant Bank v Larizza, 129 AD3d 904 [2d Dept 2015]; M&T Bank v Cliffside Prop. Mgt., LLC, 137 AD3d 876 (2d Dept 20 I6]). Plaintiff demonstrated its standing as holder of the note by establishing that it had been assigned to it prior to the commencement of the action by attaching a copy of the indorsed note, with an undated allonge from the original lender, to the complaint at the time the action was commenced (see Nationstar Mortg. , LLC v Catizone, 127 AD3d 1151 [2d Dept 2015]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust v Leigh, 137 AD3d 841 [2d Dept 2016]; JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA v Weinberger, 142 AD3d 643 [2d Dept2016]; Nationstar Mortg. , LLCv Weisblum, 143 AD3d 866 [2d Dept 2016]; Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Logan, 146 AD3d 861 [2d Dept 2017]; Deutsche Bank TrustvGarrison, 147 AD3d 725 [2dDept2017]; Wells FargoBankv Thomas, 150 AD3dl312 [2d Dept2017]; Deutsche Bank Natl Trust Co. v Carlin, 152 AD3d 491[2d Dept 2017] ; US Bank, NA v Sablo.ff, _AD3d_, 2017 NY Slip Op 06313 (2d Dept 2017]). As no claim as to the sufficiency of affixing of the allonge to the note was raised, any such claim is waived. Defendant's tenth affinnative defense is dismissed and plaintiff is awarded summary judgment dismissing and striking defendant's answer. ANCILLARY RELIEF The default of the non-appearing, non-answering defendants, including defendant Steven Fabiani, are fixed and set (see US. BankN.A. v Wolherman, 135 AD3d 850 [2d Dept2016); HSBC USA, N.A. vAlexander, 124 AD3d 838 [2d Dept 2015]; US. Bank, N.A. v Razon, I 15 AD3d 739 [2d Dept 2014]). Plaintifrs submissions support its applications to amend the caption and reform the scriveners' error in the mortgage which improperly listed incorrect information as to the description of the property subject to the mortgage, as there is no question that the parties intended the property to be security for the note, therefore those applications are granted (see Wells Fargo Bank, NA vAmbrosov, 120 AD3d 1225 [2d Dept2014]; Banko/New YorkvStein, 130 AD3d 552 [2d Dept 2015)). To effect the refonnation of the mortgage, plaintiff is to serve a copy ofthis order, with the reformed language contained herein, upon the Suffolk County Clerk within sixty (60) days of this order, to be recorded with the mortgage, paying such costs and fees as required by the Suffolk County Clerk. Plaintifrs application for the appointment of a referee pursuant to RPAPL§l321 is granted. Plaintiffs proposed order submitted with this motion, as modified by the court consistent with this decision is signed contemporaneously with this order. This constitutes the Order and decision of the Court. ~~ Dated: September 8, 2017 Hon. Robert F. Quinlan, J.S.C. FINAL DISPOSITION _x_ NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

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.