Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Daley

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Daley 2017 NY Slip Op 32748(U) December 13, 2017 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 18259/2013 Judge: Howard H. Heckman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] Shon Fonn O rder SUPREME COURT- STATE OF NEW YORK IAS PART 18 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. HOWARD H. HECKMAN JR.,' J.S.C. INDEX NO.: 18259/2013 MOTION DATE: 10/10/2017 MOTION ~EQ. NO.: 002MG ----------------------------------------------------------------X WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: FEIN, SUCH & CRANE, LLP 1400 OI..D COUNTRY RD., STE. C103 WESTBURY, NY 11590 -againstARTHUR E. DALEY, JR., ALICE DALEY, Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------)( DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY: CHRISTOPHER THOMPSON, ESQ. 33 DAVISION LANE EAST WEST ISLIP, NY 11795 Upon the following papers numbered 1 to 25 read on this motion : Notice of Motion/ Orderto Show Cause and supporting papers 1-1 S ; Notice of Cross Motion and supporting papers_ : Answering Affidavits and supporting papers 16-=23 ; Replying Affidavits and supporting papers 24-25 : Other_ ; (and after hearing counsel in support and opposed to the motion) it is. ORDERED that this motion by plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. seeking an order: 1) granting summruy judgment striking the answer asserted by defendants Arthur E. Daley, Jr. and Alice Daley ; 2) discontinuing the action against defendant Arthur E. Daley, Jr.; 3) substituting Daniel Daley and Chelsea Daley as named party defendants in place and stead of defendants designated as "John Doe #1" and " Jane Doe # 1",and discontinuing the action against defendants designated as "John Doe #2" through "John Doe #5" and "Jane Doe #2" through "Jane Doe #5"; 4) deeming all appearing and non-appearing defendants in default; 5) amending the caption; and 6) 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 plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this order amending the caption upon the Calendar Clerk of the Court; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this oraer with notice of entry upon aJI 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. Plaintiff's action seeks to foreclose a mortgage in the original sum of $315,000.00 executed by defendants Arthur E. Daley, Jr. and Alice Daley on November 29, 2006 in favor of Fremont Investment and Loan. On the same date both Daley defendants also executed a promissory note promising to re-pay the entire amount of the indebtedness to the mortgage lender. By assignment dated Februruy 9, 2009 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for Fremont [* 2] Investment and I.oan assigned the mortgage to plaintiff Wells Farg.o I3ank. i ./\. Plaintiff claims that tht: defendants d<.:foultcd under the terms of the mortgage and note by fa iling to make timely month I~ mortgage payments beginning March I, '.WI 0 an<l continuing to datt:. J>lainLiff commenced this at:tion by liling a summons. complaint and notit:c of pendency in the Suffolk County Clerk· s Office on July 11. 2013. Dcli:n<lants /\11hur E. Daley Jr. and /\lit:e Daley served an answer on August 5. 20 I~ - Ikft:ndam /\nhur I·.. Daley. Jr. died on January 8. 1014. Plaintiffs motion seeks an order granting summary judgment striking defendants· answer. discontinuing th<.: action against the tlct:cased part~ deli:11dant. and ror the appointment of a referee. In opposition to plainti rr s motion. defendant Alice Daley claims that: 1) tht.: action must he stayed pentling substitution for the decedent or plaintiffs withdrawal of a claim seeking a deficiency juc.lgmcnt against tht.: ckcec.lcnt's estate: 2) plaintiff has failed to prove that it complied with the service rcquire1rn.:nts st.:t forth in the mo11gage and pursuant to RP APL 1304: and 3) plaintiff lacks standi ng to maintain this a1.:tion. Tiu: proponent or u summary j u<lgment motion must 11iah.e •~ priuw focic ~!towing of entitlement to judgment as a mailer or Jaw. tendering suflicicnt evidence to elimi nate any material question of fact from the case. The grant of summary judgment is appropriate only when it is clear that no material an<l triable issues or fact have b<.:en pr~sented (Sillman 1·. Twentieth ( 'e!nt111y-Fox Film ( 'orp.. 3 Y2d :195 ( 1957)). The moving party h<.:ars the initial burden of prnving enti tlement lo summary judgment (Winl!grocl 1·. N>'ll Meclical Center. 64 NY2d 851 ( 1985)). Once such proof has been proffort.:d. tht: burden shifts to the opposing party who. to defoat Lhc motion. must offer l.!vidcn1.:e in admissible fi.m n. and must set forth facts sunicicm to require a trial or any issue of fact (CPI .R 32 I 2(h): %uckermcm 1•. City <?(./\/e11· fork, 49 Y2d 557 ( 1980)). Summary judgment shall \inly be granted when there arc no issues or material foct and the t.:videncc requires the court to <Jirect .tjudgmen: in fovor or thl! movant as a matter or law (FrieJ1<1.\· <d: lnimu/s \'. A.\SOCiOIC!d Fur ,\/01111/ucturers. 46 NY2d I 065 ( l 979)). Entitl<.:mcnt to summary judgment in favor of the foreclosing plaintiff is C!'tablishcd. prima fot:ic by th..: plaintiffs production of' the mortgage and the unpaid note. and evidence or default in payment (see! IVeils Fargo /Jank N. •I. 1-. Erohoho. 127 i\D3d I 176, <) N YSJd 3 12 (2"<l Dept.. 20 I 5): Wells Forgo Hank, N.ll. 1•. •·1/i. 122 i\D3d 7'26. 995 NYS2d 735 (2 1111 Dept., 2014)). Where the phl intilrs standing is placed in issue by the c.lclcndanrs answer. the.: plaintiff must also establish its standinµ :is purl or its prima focie showing (Aurom l.ow1Sen•ices1·. Taylor, 25 NY3d 355. 12 :\YS3d (,12 (2015): l.rwnrnre r . Firs/Jing, UO i\D3tl 787. 14 YS3d 410 (2"'1 Depl.. 2015): 11.''l'IJ(' Hank ( IS: /. N.. I. 1·. IJ01>tisl<'. 128 i\D3d 77. 10 NYS3d 255 (2"'1 D<.:pt.. 2015)). In a fon.:closur<.: m:tion. a plaintiff ha-; standing if it is either the holder of. or the assignee or. the underlying. note at the time that the action is cnmm<.:ncec.l (.I urom !.oa11 ,\'enice.\ 1·. 'I'<~\ ·/or. s11;wo.: 1~-111igra111 /Jo11k ,._ l.uri::.::.a. 129 i\D:'- d 94. J 1 , YS3d 129 (2 11' 1 Dcpt.. 2015)). Either a written assignment oflhc note cir the ph~sical transll:r ol"the note to the plaintiff prior to commencement of the action is sullicient to trnnsfi:r the ohligat1 amJ tci pro,·i<le standing (Ire/ls Fargo /Junk. ,\ '.. I. 1·. Parker. 125 J\IBd 848. 5 011 NYS.1d 130 ('.2"J Dept.. 2015): l ·.s /Jank 1·. (i1~1 ·. 125 i\D3c.l 845. S 1YS:Jd 116 (2'.J Dept.. 2015)). /\ plaintirt~s a11ach111ent ora dul~ inJorsed note to its complaint or to the certificate of m<.:rit required pmsu:1111 h ('Pl R 10121 h ). re1uplcd '' ith an aftid:\\ it in ''hi ch it al leg<:" Ihat i I had possl'ssinn or thl' note prior to the l:Oll\lnCllCement of the action. has bl't:ll held to COllStitute due proof ~lr the plain ti fr S standing to pnisecuk its claims for foreclosure and sale (./l'i\lorgan ( 'Jwse Hank. N.: 1. 1·. Jl'einhL'rger. 142 /\D.1d (143. 37 NYSJd 286 (2"'1 Dl.!pt.. 20 I (1): FNM.-1 1·. )'oku1mt= II. /11c .. 141 i\DJd 506. 35 -2- [* 3] NYS3d 236 (2nJ Dt:pt.. 2016): De11tsd1e 13ank Notional /rust Co. \'. Leigh. 137 AD3d 841. 28 NYS3d 86 (1 "d Dept.. 20 l 6): N ationstm· Mortf!age LU."· Cati:::one. I ?.7 /\D3d 1151 . 9 NYS3d 315 (2"'1 Dept., 2015) ). Proper service of RP /\Pl . 1304 notices on borrowcr(s) are conditions precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and the plai11tiff has the burden of establishing compliance with this condition <.-Jurorn f .oan .\'erl'ias. LU' 11. Weish/um. 85 AD3d 95. 923 NYS2d 609 (2 11J Dept.. 201 l): First /ll({(iona/ Bank r?lChicago \'. S'ifrer, 73 /\D3d 162. 899 NYS2d 256 (2"11 Dept.. 2010)). RP/\P L 1>04(2) provides that notice be sent by registered or certified mail and by first-class mail to the last known address of the borrower(s), and if different, io the residence that is the subject of the mongagc. 'J he notice is considered gi vcn as or the date it is mailed and must be sent in a separate envelope from any other mailing or notice and the notice must be in 14-point type. /\t issue is whether the evidence subm itted by the plaintiff is sufficient to cstabl ish its right to foreclose. The defendant does not contest her failure to make timely payments due under the terms of the promissory note and mortgage agreement fo r the past seven years and nine months. Rather, the issues raisc<l by the del'cndant concern whether the action must be stayed us a result of' the dclCndanUmortgagor Arthur E. Daley . Jr.s death and whether the proof submitted by the mortgage lender provides sufficient admissible evidence to prove its entitlement to summary judgment based upon the mortgagors· continuing default. plaintiff's compliance with mortgage and statutory preforcclosure notice req ui rements. and plaintiff's standing to maintain this action CPLR 45 18 provides: Business records. (a) Generally. /\.ny writing or record. whether in the form of an entry in a book or otherwise. made as a memorandum or record of any act. transaction. occurrence or event. sha ll be admissible in evidence in proof or that act. transaction. occurrence or event, i r the j udgc finds that it was made in the regular course of any business and that it was the regular course of such business to make it. nt the time of the act. transaction. occurrence or event. or within a reasonable time thcre<.1ltcr. The Court 01· Appea ls in !'eople 1'. <i11hlice. 81 NY2d 630. 635. 6 l 2 NYS2d 350 ( 1994) explained that ··the essence or the business records exception to the- hearsay rule is that records systematically made rnr the conduct or business ... arc inherently highly trustworthy because they arc routine rclkctions o f day-to-day operations and because the entrant' s ob ligation is to ha ve them trnthf'ul and accurate ror purposes or lhc conduct of the enterprise.'' (quoting l'eople v. Ke1111e<(1-. 68 NY?.d 56<>. 579. 51 0 N Y~ 2 d 853 ( 198(l)). It is a unique hearsay exception since it represents hearsay ddihcratcly created and Ji!Tcrs from all other hearsay exceptions which assume that declarations " ·hich come within them \\'Crc not made Jcliberatcly with litigation in mind. Since a business n:cord keeping system ma~· be designed lo meet the hearsay exception, it is important to prcH·i<lc pn..:dictahility in this <lrca and discretion should not normall y be exercised to exclude such evidence nn gniunds not f"nrc-;ccabk al till' time the rccnrd was made (s<:'c 'frotri 1 l:"s!ct!e o/Buchwwn. 27'2 ·. t\IY2d 660. 70() NYS'.2d )3-t (3"1 Dept.. 2000)). The three li.H111dationul requirements or CPI .R 45 l 8(a) arc: 1) the record nrn~t be made in the [* 4] regular cours<.: or business- reflecting a routine, regularly conducted business activity. needed and relied upon in the performance or business functions; 2) it must be the regular course or business to make the records (i.e. the record is made in accordance with cstahlished procedures for the routine. systematic making or the record): and 3) the record must have been made at the time of the act. transaction. occurrence or event. or within a reasonable time thereafter. assuring that the recollection is foirly accurate and the entries routinely made (see People 1•. Kenne<(\'. supra fii>, pp. 579-580 )). The ··mere filing or papers received from other entities. even i r such papers arc retained in the regular course or business. is insunicicnt to qualify the documents as business records:· (People v. Cra1sl<'y. 86 NY2d 81. 90. 629 YS2d 992 ( 1995)). The records will be admissible ··if the recipient can cstahl ish personal knowledge of the maker· s business practices and procedures. or that the records provided hy the maker were incorporatcd into the recipienr s own records or routinely relied upon by the recipient in its business." (Stale <dNei1 York 1•. 158'" ,')'free/ & Riverside Dril•e I lousing ( '0111pa11_1·. Inc. . I 00/\0Jd 1293, 1296, 956 NYS2d 196(2012); /eare denied, 20 NY3d 858(2013): see also Vil'io11e 1:.1ie1111<1 Medical ('are, P. C. v. Country-Wide Insurance Company, 25 N YJd 498, 14 NYS3d 283(201 )): /)eutsche Hunk National 'fr11s1 Co. 1 Monica, 131 /\D3d 737, 15 NYS3d (T" Dept., 2015): l\'oplu ' '· DiSc1/1'0. 284 AD2d 547. 727 NYS2d 14G (21111 Dept .. 2001): Maner<l Carothers 1·. u1~·1co. 79 AD3d 864. 914 NYS2d 199 (21"' DcpL 20 10) ). In this regard. with respect to mortgage foreclosures. a loan scrviccr's employee may testify on behalf of the mortgage lender and a n:pn:sentat ivc of an assignee 0 f thc original lender can rely upon business records of the original lender to establish its claims for recovery of amounts due from the borrowers provided the assigncdplainti ff establishes that it incorporated the original records into its own records and relied upon those records in the regular course of business (l,amlmark Capitol Im•. Inc. v. Li-Shan Wang. 9-i /\DJd 418. 941 NYS2d I 44 ( P 1 Dept.. 2012): l'or(/hlio Rec< ffe1:1 · ,-lssociol<'.\'. LU ·. 1·. Lall. 127 /\D3<l 576. 8 YS3d I 0 I ( 1•1 Oept.. 20 l 5 ): Merrill Lynch /J11si11ess Filll111c:iul Serl'ic:es. Inc. i·. frutaros Co11struclio11. Inc .. 30 AD3d 336. 819 NYS2d 223 ( l ' 1 Dept.. 2006)). 1 1 • The statute (CPLR 4518) c learly does not require a person to have personal knowledge of each and c,·ery entry contained in a business record. particularly in this case. where there is a business rdationship between mortgage servicing entities responsible for entering and maintaining accurate rl·ccmls. and where the current servicer has incorporated and relied upon the business records it maintains in its regular course of business (see Ci1ilw11k N. ,-1. 1·. tllm1111s 144 AD3d 1212. 40 NYS3d 653 (3 1" lkpt.. 2016): //,\ 'BC Hunk USA. N.A. i·. Sage. 11 2 /\D3d 1126. 977 NYS2d 446 1 ('.\ " Dept.. 20 13 ): l .011d111<1rk ( 'upilttl Im·. Inc. '" LI-Slum Wang. s111m1. ) ). /\s the /\ppcllatc Di vision. Second Department recently stated in Citigroup i·. K.opelowit::. 14 7 /\DJd 1014. 48 NYS3d 2'.23 (2m1 Dept.. 2017): ··There is no requirement that a plaintiff in u foreclosure action rely on a particular set or business rl·cords to establish a prima facic case. so long as the plaintifTsatislics the admissibility requirements or CPLR 45 I 8(a) and the records themselves actually evince the fac ts for which they me relied upon ... lkcisions interpreting CPLR -i5 I 8 arc consistent to the extent that the three li.Hmdational rcquiremrnts: 1) that the record be made in the regular course of business:~) that it is in the regular course or business to make the record: and ~) that the record must be madl' at or near the time the tr.msaction occurred. ·- if demonstrated. make the records admissihk since such records arc <:onsidcred trust worthy and rel iablc. Morcm er. the language contained in the statute spcci Ii call~ authorizes the court discretion to determine admissibility by stating .. i/f/J('jllt~f!.e./illll\··· that the three foundational requirements arc sati!-.fied the c\·idcncc shall he: admissible. Initially. with n.:spect to issues surrnunding the mortgagor·s (Arthur I·.. lhlcy"s) death. as a gcncr:il ru lc ir n cause or action survives the death or a party. the death di vests the court or -4- [* 5] jurisdiction until a duly appointed personal representative is substituted for the <kcedent (CP LR 1015: Giroux 1·. Dunlop 'l'ire Corp.. 16 J\D3d 1068. 791 NYS2d 769 (4 1h Dept.. 2005): Gon:ale:: 1•. Ford Motor Compw~l'. 295 AD2d 474. 744 YS2d 468 (1"J Dept.. 2002): Maller <?/Finstoss. 26 N Y2d 181. 309 NYS2d 184 ( 1970)). I Imvcver, where a pa11y's death does not affect the merits of a ca"ic. then.: is no need f'or strict adherence to the requirement that the proceedings be stayed pending su bstitution (/Jorn 1·. /"i11ciguerrn. 139 AIYkl 797. 526 NYS2d 671 (3'J Dept.. 1988): Alaska Seohoard /'artners Ud l'artm!rship r. <Jrnnt. 20 AD3d 436. 79 NYS2d 117 (211J Dept.. 2002)). In this case the forcc.;loscd premises were owned hy the Daley defendants as tenants by the entirety. By operation orlaw. upon the demise of one tenant hy the entirety. the surviving tenant became seized of the entire ownership interest in the subject property (sec Paterno 1•. ( '}'( •• LU". 46 AD3d 788. 850 NYS2d 131 (211J Dept. , 2007): Maller <~l l'ioli. 65 NY2d 392, 492 NYS2d 550 (I <J85 ): Sq11iciarino \'. 51'q11iciari110. 35 AD3d 844. 830 N YS2d l 63 (2"d Dept., 2006) ). The rule is that <1 mortgagor who has ma<k an absolute conveyance or all his/her interest in the mortgaged premises. including his equity or redemption. is not a necessary part to foreclosure. unless a <kliciency judgment is sought (FlvMA '" Connel~v. 84 AD2d 805. 444 NYS2d J 47 (2 1111 Dept.. 1981 ). lleicleKctrd1·. Reis. 135 AJ) 414. l 19 NYS 921 (1'1 Dept., 1909); M11t11al l-!fi! Insurance Co. (~(New fork,._ Ninety-F(/iy ,\'free! & /,exiny,fon Al·enue ( 'orp.. 60 NYS2d 450 (NY Cty. Sup. Ct. 1946)). Since. upon his death. cklcndant/mortgagor Arthur l·:. Daley. Jr. retains no ownership interest in the premises. and in view or the fact that as pan or the mortgage lcndcr·s motion the Trust seeks to discontinu~ thi s action against the defendant/decedent nnd has elected lo waive its right to seek a ddiciency. there is no n.:ason to stay this action since thl.! dcfcndai11's death docs not affect the merits of this action (//SBC /Jank USA '" llnf{ar Family Reolty Corp. 111 J\03d 673. 974 NYS2d 583 (2"J lkpt.. 201 J ): /)f~l /ltfortµa>.:e ( 'opital. fn<.:. ' " ././ !Jmshy Nec:k ltd 51 AD3d 857. 859 NYS2d 221 (211J Dept.. 2008 ): FN.HA 1·. Co1111el(\'. supra.: Paterno 1·. C >"C. LLC. supra.: Co1m11~\ ·wide l/ome f,ocms ,. f·:e.1 ·s. 27 AD3d 24 7. 8 I I YS2d 362 ( 1~• Dept.. 2006 ): Residential Credit .<iolut ions. Inc. '" La(ii et ct!.. 19 Misc 3•J 12 18(A). 975 ' Ys2d 369 (Queens Cty. Sup. Ct.. 2013)). With respect LO the issue of standing. paragraph 5 or plainti ff"s mortgage St::rvice1.-s ofliccr·s anidavit slates the following: ··s. Plaintiff is in possession of the original Ntite and was in possession ors41mc at the time this w..:tion \,\as commenced. Plaintiff acquired the original Note on August I 9. 20 11 . !\ copy or said nriginal Noli.!. along with a copy or the particular business records that I rcvie"ed and rdied upon. maintained as described above anJ evidencing and confirming th~ date J> laintilrs (sic) acquired possession orthc original otc. is annc~ed hereto as Exhibit ··A"'. l'h is sworn statement tog et her with the documentary proof subm itted by the plainti rr prm icks n:lc\'<111t. admissible cvidcnce to establish plaintilrs standing to maintain this forcc losurc action since submission <1f' an alfalavit rrom the mortgugt: lender's agcnt attesting to pluintilrs agent's possession or the nok at or prior tl' the commencement or the action is sufficient to establish the ha11k"s standing (see I /S/1( ·Hunk ( I.\'. I. N.·1. ,._ :lrmijos. 151 ;\1)3d 943. 57 NYSJd 205 (2'.J Dept.. 2017 ): ( 'c11trol \lwtgug,< <'11. 1· /)({\·;,._ 1-19 /\l>~d 898. S> NYS3d 325 (2"'1 Dc:pt.. 2017 ): Ire//,· ' Forgo /Jank. NA. 1·. Ostig11.1·. 127 /\1)3d 1375. 8 1 YS3d 6(>9 (J'J Dept.. 2015 ): (i. \'. H1111k. 1 \'.A. 1·. ( ·m::. 1-17 t\D3d I IO>. -17 YSJd -159 (2'kl Dcpt.. 2017)). /\ny allcg.ed issues surrnunding the mortgage assignment arc irrck,·<1111 in thi~ case: concc:rning the issue or standing since the plaintiff -5- [* 6] has established posse~sion of a duly indorsed promissory note prior to commencing this action (/·A,\ IA r. Yakaput; II. Inc.. 141 AD3d 506, 35 NYS3d 236 (2 11d Dept.. 2016 ); /)eu/sche Bank Nmional hust Co. ,._ Leixh. 137 AD3d 841, 28 NYS3d 86 (2"d Dept., 2016 )). Plaintiff has also established standing by attaching a copy of the promissory note to its compla int. which taken together with the attorney certi lication and servicer" s affidavit provides suflicient proof to establish standing ( \'C!<' .!l'Morxtm <'hose /3(111k 1-. Weinf}(!rgl'r. supra.: Natio11star Mortgage• l.L< '. 1•. Cnfi:one, Sllf J/'O.) ). With respect to the issue of the defendants· delUult in mak ing payments. paragraph 6 of plaintitrs mortgage servicer·s officer"s affidavit states the following: Borrower foiled lo make the payment that was due for March I , 20 I 0 under the Loan Documents and has failed to make subseq uent payments to bring the loan current. Consequently. the entire loan balance is now due and owing to Plaintiff."' "(> In order to establish primu facie entitlement lo judgment as a mali(!r of law in a forcelo~un; <H.:tio11, the plaintiff must suhmit the mortgage. the unpaid note and admiss ible evidence to show default (sC'e />e111~1·Alw.: I folding\'. Inc. I '. Tomanel/i. 139 AD3d 688, 32 YS3d 181 (211.i Dept., 2016): North . Imerican Suring.,· /Jank 1· Hsposito-Como. l 41 A03d 706. 3 5 YS3d 491 (2 11d Dept.. 2016) : /l 'm/Ji11gum Mu111al Hank 1·. •\'chenk. 112 J\D3d 6 15. 975 . ·ys2d 902 (2"J Dept.. 20 13 )). Plaintiff has provided admissible evidence in the form of a copy of the note and mortgage. and an arfidavit allesting to the defendant ·s undisputed default in making timely mo1igagc payments sufficient to sustain its hun.kn to prove delcndant has defaulted under the terms of the parties agreement by failin g lo make timely payments since March 1, 20 I 0 (CPLR 45 l 8; see /Veils Fargo /3ank. NA. 1·. Tho11ws. supra.: Ci1igro11p 1·. l\ope/oll'if::. supra.)). Accordingly, and in the absence of any proof tn raise an issue of fac t concerning her conti nuing default. plaintif'f~s applicati on for summary judgment against the def<:ndant based upon her breach of the mortgage agreement and promissory not!..! must he granted. With respect to service or the pre-foreclosure mortgage RP APL 1304 90-duy notices, tlK' proof' required to pro ve strict compliance with the statute can be satisfied: 1) by plaintitrs sub111ission of an artidavit or service of the notices (see Citi/llorfgage. lm:. \'. l'afJJ)(IS. 147 /\1)3d <)00. -17 NYS3d 4 15 (2'"1 l)cpt., 2017); Hank <fNe11· fork J\le/10111·. A<111i110. I J I f\ l)Jd 1186. 16 '\JY SJd 770 ( 2"J Dept.. 20 1) ): /)e111sche Bank 1 \/utimut! 'fr11s1 Co. 1·. •'ijJanos. 102 AD3d 909, %1 NYS2d 200 (2"'1 Dept.. 2013)): or 2) by plaintitrs submission orsunicient proof to establish prooror 1 1 mailing hy the post onicc (sec I !SH(· /Jank l 1 . .\1..1. 1-. < S.-1 ):rn11. 154 A D>d 822. (,4 ' Y S>d 38 (2 " Dept.. 2017 ): ("it ii\lortgage. Inc. ,._ />appm. SllfJW f Jg. CJ() I: see II'ells Fargo Bank. :\'... J 1·. 'fr1111iu. I 50 1\)) )J I 049. 55 YS~J 1:q (2 11" Dept., 2017)). Once either method is cstahlishcd a prcsumptitlll o 1 n:cci pl ,irises (se<' / "i l"iunc 1:·1it 1111c' i\ledical ('are. !>. ( • 1·. <'0111111:r- ll'icle /11s11rc111ce ( 'o .. supra. : · . Flup,sfur Hunk 1·. i\/c'll(/o:u. 139 /\D3d 898. :r2 NYS3d 278 (211' 1 l)cpt.. 201 6): l?c>sidentiul 1/0/d;,1,l!. ( 'orp. 1 , 'rnlfsd<t/e /11s11rm1n• ( 'o .. 2 86 J\ D2d 6 79. 71<> NYS2c.l 7Ml (21111 Dept.. 2001 ) ). -. \ 1 In this case. there is sunicicnt cvidrnce to pro,·c that mailing by certified and lirst class mail \\;is dnnL' hy tlw posl of'ficL' Pl aintiff has suhm ilted pro<)f in the fo rm nf an anidavit from the mortgage scn·icing rcprescntath-c confirming that the mailings ''ere done more than 90 days prior to commL·ncing thi s action on February 18.1013: together wit h copies ol' thc four individua l 90 day twticcs containilH.!. thL' trackinu numhl:rs fo r the ccrtilicd mailin!.!.s: the morHW!.!.L' lcnck1 lellcr lot! .-s ._ .... .... .... - -6- ~ [* 7] rcconJs identified as a ·'certified regulatory mail register" identifying the certified mailings hy artick numlx:r: the serviccr·s .. first class proof of mailing report"' showing first class mailing to both mortgagors at the mortgaged premises on February 28,2013: US PS postal ..Track & Confirm "records indicating the certi fied mailing notices (with label numbers matching the certi fied mailing tracking numbers) were delivered to the premises on March 4. 20 13 at 11:06 a.m. : and a copy or the proof or fi ling statement Jile<l with the New York State Banking Department pursuant to RPAPL 1306 rnnlirming the 90-day notices were timely served and filed. Sucb proof establishes the plaintiffs compliance with statutory requirements (see I ISHC Bank USA ,._ ():;can. supra.). Defendant's claim that a RP/\PL I :104 notice was .. never recei ved at our home" together with defense counsel's conclusory denial or service, arc not supported by any relevant admissible evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue or fact which would defeat plaintifrs summary judgment motion (see Pl Ill MortgaKe ( 'orp .. v. Muriq. 135 AD3d 725, 24 NYS3d 13 7 (2"J Dept., 2016 ); I !S/3( ' !Jank v. f.~pinal. 13 7 A D3d 1079. 28 N YS3d l 07 (2"" Dept.. 2016 )). With respect to the mortgage default notices, a review of the af1irmativc defenses asserted in defendants· answt!r reveals that the defendants never asserted plnintiff s faiiure to serve a mo11gage default notice as required under the terms of the mortgage, as an affirmative defense. Based upon their failure to assert such claim as an affirmative defense, the defendants have waived their right to assen it in opposition to plaintilTs motion (CPLR 3015 & 3018(h): sec: l·migranl Bank v. Alarmulo. 143 /\D3d 856. 39 NYS3J 83 (2"11 Dept.. 2016)). Moreover, even were the court to consider defendant's fourth affirmative defense as asserti ng such defense. the plaintiff has submitted su fTicienl proof to show that default notices were mailed to both mortgagor defendants in compliance with mortgage requirements. The plaintiffs proof consists oL:m af1idavit submitted by the mortgage scrviCl.:r·s representative confirming that the mailings were done by first class mailing of'noticcs dated December 8.1010. together with copies ofthe t\.VO notices of default dated December 8. 2010 and addressed to the Daley defendants at the mortgaged premises, and the mortgage lender's letter log records rdkctinu_ the dl:mnnd letters were sent on December 8, 20 I 0. Such proof provides sufficient evidence of compliance with the mortgage default notice requirements and the defendant's affidavit. to!.!.cthcr with dcknsc counscr s conclusory denial or service, fails to raise a genuine issue or foct concerning service of the <lcfoull notice (see !'Ill/ Mortgage COip. 1·. Muricy. supra.: //.<..', !JC Bunk l'. 1~·.,pi11al. supru. ). In addition. even were the court to dcc1n the proof submitted by the plaintiff with respect to service of the mortguge defau lt notice insufficient. plaintiffs proof submitll.:J in support or service of the RP APL 130.+ 90-day 1wtices. satisfies the mortgage knder's obligations under the terms or the mortgage concerning the notice or default requirements (see fl '01.:lwria Hank. N.·f. ,._ ( ·u/'Cano. I06 /\D3d 72.+. 965 NYS2d 516 (2"0 Dept.. 2013) ). - ~ - ¥ 1:i1wlly. defense counsel's contention that the motion must be denied based upon plaintilrs n1ilure to timely seek a default judgment against defendants who defaulted in appearing in thi s action is not valid as clearly de!Cnsc counsel docs not have standing to assert this 1.kknsc on behalf of defendants that he docs noi reprcsenL and no legal basis cxisls to Jeny plainti!Ts motion on these.: gro unds. In add ition. thc defendant has railed lo raise any admissible evidence lo support the remaining allirmativc <ldcnscs asscrlL·d in her ans,ver in opposition h) plaintilrs motion. J\ccording ly those defenses must be deemed abandoned and ure ht:rcby dismissc..:d (.\.l'l' l\ro11ick r. I />. Tlwnmlr ( 'o.. Inc. . 70 J\ D3d 648. 892 NYS2d 85 (2'"1 Dept.. 20 I 0): Citiha11k. N..-1. r. I '(111 !Jru11/ />ro11c!J"ties. J,/.( ·. t) ) ,\J)Jd I I 58. 945 NYS2d .330 (2 .1 Dept.. 2012 ): Flagslar Bank 1'. /3ellc1/ion 94 I\ J) Jd () 14.+. 9.+3 ' YS2d 551 (2'"1 Dept.. 20 12 ): Ire/ls Fargo Hank Mi1111C!sofa. N. 11. 1·. />ere:;. 4 I /\l)Jd 590, wn NYS2d 877 (:2"'1 Dept.. 2007)). 11 -7- 1 • [* 8] Accordingly pl a i1~tiff s motion seeking summary judgment is granted. The proposed order of rdcrcm:c has been signed simultaneously with execution of this order. HON HO\V ARD !.J Dated : December 11, 2017 J.S.C. -8- ~q:f~ !(~v1AN . JR.

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.