Carrington Mtge. Servs., LLC v Morain

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Carrington Mtge. Servs., LLC v Morain 2018 NY Slip Op 33184(U) December 4, 2018 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 700605/2016 Judge: Mojgan C. Lancman 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] JEFFREY 68 Main Street, NY Tuckahoe, A. L.L.C. KOSTERICH, 10707 Tel: (914) 395-0055 December NYSCEF Via Myrtle and Legal NY Jamaica, 5, 2018 Mail 11435 RE: CARRINGTON Dear Ms. MORTGAGE vs. MORAIN, ET AL. Index# 700605/2016 Jonas: Our Decision firm and represents Plaintiff, enclosed Order, please in the find above-referenced the Decision and Per matter. Order after the directive Hearing dated 4, 2018. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Chri opher Paralegal Enclosure cc: Via NYSCEF John and Watson Jamaica, NY Doe and Jasmin 107-31 John 395-0230 Services 502 FL Blvd, Sutphin 8900 Class (914) Esq. Jones, Queens First Fax: Place 1 1433 Number 107-31 Watson Jamaica, NY First Morain 1-10 Place 11433 Class Mailfw/encl.) L. Marshall of the December [* 2] NEW YORK PRESENT: SUPREME MOJGAN HON. - QUEENS COURT COUNTY C. LANCMAN, PART IAS CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, 5 LLC, Index 700605/2016 No. Plaintiff, DECISION -against- AND ORDER AFTER HEARING JOHN MORAIN,etal., Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------x This matter which was Issues Presented The good faith faced principal that the fact with Jasmin issues Ms. a bad Morain faith ("Ms. at the § 3408 Shirene the for abad faith to CPLR pursuant hearing §3408, 6, 2018. raised to CPLR that to the undersigned referred on June pursuant 1) Insisting despite was conducted ("Ms. Phillip plaintiff: had hearing in June the whether sign Phillip") plaintiff 2017; and this requirement accepted to a trial loan a permanent waived previously pursuant Morain") were hearing failed in to negotiate by: three payment plan one to Ms. riodification thiough payments (3) ("TPP")anc agreement, when its attorneys from the defendant an additional payment; and/or 2. Sending two different materially to Ms. Morain, despite counsel and been had the fact ordered TPP that agreements, the was plaintiff by a Referee not aware to have Assistance ("RMA"); 4. Interpreting owner of 5. Failing HUD the property to timely that direct Evans' 3. Failing to comply with Referee directive issued be fore March legal authority lbr the demand that 18, 2018, Morain's on Ms. Ms. contact at orneys Moipin with February 22, sign Phillip was lher; and one directly represented by and/or, 20 I 8 to provide, 3 Request for on or Mortgage and/or guidelines and resptni to require assumption and mortga e by Ms. Phillip, a non- and/or non-bormwer; to Ms. of the note Morain's completed Pave I of RMA, 9 which wa submitted on June 27, [* 3] The Hearing At (the the or "CMS"), "plaintiff the plaintiff's the hearing priorto of the Morain's Ms. ifnot facts testified Following the The sets Court of the (the Inc. The a note in and the loan Ms. and recorded Exhibit "i", Ms. per month hearing below application Morain: Ms. review Esq. Jonas, Gordon matter in this relative process epresented had the Court, Ms. her daughter, h:rself, who ("Jonas"), before appearances Morain Ms. filed Ms. and aad personal of law, which Morain knowledge submissions. post-hearing of its findings fact conclusions and and the documentaryevidence the purchase the ("CMS" into admitted evidence based are on at the hearing. Ms. is now the RMA Morain's towards transcript for and the sole tv s. Morain (collectively, Carrington plaintifl, which CMS, Mortgage and the marital at the of the encumbers HUD ta the loan. favor in which to subject to live relative 6, 2014 a mortgage ("FHA"), thus ill, owner is part The >roperty, first was Electronic Mortgage The Department ofthe loan was ofHousing regulations. between relationship after Property Morain the quitclaim Ms. transferred deed the mar the defendants lage fell ended, came behind at the Property, inehuling the mortgage, at p. 30). Page deted by deed, his interest 20, 201 S November to her.(See, in t 16 Property is attached). lives Phillip, expenses, "Transcript") because of the Property Mr. 27, 2015, to which household the New York Pl ice, Jamaica, and plaintiff, daughter, (the Watson Morain") from on March was second continued to the on Novernber documents became who ("Mr. $476,215.00 Administration ("HUD"), Morain, Morain two as Nominee Morain payments of The Housing Development Morain John "plaintift"). plaintiff. Inc., as 107-31 known property sum the executed the of Systems, Ms. ofthe defendants or the defendants In 2015, to an end. on forth adduced by the Federal Urban and the parties hearing borrowed favor Registration insured Myrtle attorney, "Property"), "defendants") Services, appearances in works Supervisor. ion any of the Court in themodification Gordon ("Gonlon"), Mediat and LLC Services, Fact To finance 1 1433 Mortgage to. testimony Findings Gordon Litigation attended on behalfof of the conferences all, she the credible not involved called witnesseswere and Phillip, been had not Clayton Mr. as a Default had Carrington plaintiff, loan. Three at most, and The witness, office of the facts, knowledge to the subject one called California Anaheim, no personal had testified. witnesses four hearing, 2 of 9 and (See, contribstes Hxhi F it "F, the sum the of $800.fX) RMA and the [* 4] The defaulted and all Ms. Morain 2016 payments. Settlement conferences at same. the start Transcript (See, Ms. including assume pp. with monthly contributions is flatly Gordon's Furthermore, The subject an RMA, but no The which package, Incomplete that Information filed. In Notice to Ms. a Request the that for would that requesting not. that by have to that Phillip. Ms. April dated 7, a non-borrower as explained an RMA. sign Phillip e Assistance November Phill Ms. and Moreover, Ms in plaintiff, she letter cwn Mortgag be was findsnosupport Elorain loan. an would testified Phillip required the requirement thereto, Morain, CMS so which ML 7, submit Phillip Gordon, Ms. CMS' by assume the with response both represented doing a borrower, RMA, that indicates hat Gordon'sst$tement of is undermined waived Morain Ms. in the testimony th it Ms. hearing, 41-43). non-borrower the the $800.00 below, its attorneys, provided later this at 1, 2015 from a December Mominidirectly." IlfMs. hearing was Phillip at pp. the issue is discussed through she of by on which Ms. witness Transcript (See, requirement plaintiff plaintiffs contradicted testimony letter, the plaintiff, below, The that defendants on July Services notes requested at the testified the due Leyal to contact the plaintiff Jonas, indicate would "not that ling the payment Queens Evans' of Referee the plaintiff matter, 69-70). her mother. and record, this attorney, and 2016, notice conten 19, 2016, to make by failing judicial to settle RMA Phillip's the loan the 2017. at on January in September lakes Morain's the the note and reniinded of efforts because action and began Court directed Ms. However, fraudulent The which this mortgage subsequent At sign commenced to the conference RMA. in plaintiff relative ("RMA") an sent 2016, an additional ip submit RMA. The refusal to Morain's letter, require with comply counsel dated the filed April a non-borrower requires all towards The subject Ms. Morain s "declined/canceHed." any event, plaintiff even s |ctter a signed " Exhibit letter fm1her application (M) CFPB, Protectio1 that plia, Phillip's plaintiff's Bureau inter stating the non-borrower the that review their denial, ("CFPB"). By its policy is to a credit income the report for that fonn the all RMA an orm. contributor's and qualification and certification expens es of provides authorlization and non-borrower, information provided is truthful ). states was Jonas if a norwborrower to the t > the response to complete non-borrower(s) Additionally, to obtain includes (See, In Financial Consumer agreement modification. to CMS RMA. an to the complaint, confinns and he used file becauseofMs. 2017 in January an RMA: understanding will the responded requirement a loan she with CMS to sign ... CMS that request a complaint 7, 2017, This RMA deniedMs.Morain's plaintiffultimately there that deemed testilled were due to the faihire and incomplete, that this required requirement to complete is no requirement Page 3 of to submit her was an 9 reque not RMA, for a non-borrower MA an t for supported b the from Ms. Phillip, was assistance by the RMA. clear to eventually terms of assume In the the [* 5] loan. CMS Because appeal application the the denial incomplete, was eligible nct an internal for ( Id.) At did contributor, HUD that contending an RMA, conference a settlement non-borrower that deemed guidelines Morain Ms. 24, Ms. 2017, an RMA. a non-borrower require received not April to submit need requested then it had because on not a bad faith hearing, Ms. (bok opposed the Phillip, Ms. a Phillip, a contrary Ms. such.ts plaintiff The from that argped plaintiff contributor, RMA a completed Morain The position, to submit Phill.ip, this request, hearing should stating not go forward. April On faith bad before Based 2017; of upon Morain by July Robyn attorney, Ms. Goldstein's directed: to submit back that did Phillip Evans Catapano-Fox. Tracy plaintiff's counsel Referee objections, Referee before the Attorney not the When an RMA. for a appeared parties represented isq., to submi have down matter set this Goldstein, RMA Morain Ms. to send faith bad the plaintiff 2017; to respond to the subject before Part did heal ing contri)ution a non-borrower by June30, Conference to the Settlement the representation, the plaintiff a new and 14, 2017; was remanded plaintiff's to the Jonas' ( See. the Transcript). Catapano-Fox Ms. 2017 Morain's at p.77 Referee June the Catapano-Fox, Ms. and testimony letter in hearing Referee Referee over 24, 2017, tosead letter Referee by not go 28, 2017. The case to August and adjourned Evans 15, documents a missing fuly forward. by June form 11, 2017. On Goldstein, submit counsel, June 9, 2017, Esq., memorialized an RMA. which The the has advised discussed at the last distribution. Ko: waiver of its < emand from an e-mail in this to complete the terich, Go Attorney bank the the non-borrower [emphasis Exhibit form yet LLC, that Robyn by Ms. dstein to Ms. which was Phillip Morain's lable ava at the last Court is unwilling client added)....my completed proof statements, with RMA, along, and authorization that an o f income, for "H") through plaintiff, discussion Morain's [Ms. is not of our since RMA form ... (See. report] and matter, matter in this in light RMA Contributor new conference regular to accept Phillip's words, the that However, appearance a credit In other A. as follows: has agreed not JetTrey the plaintiff's so through did My client Ms. its attorneys, confinned and plaintiff states for through plaintiff, its counsel, agreed RM A from Ms. Phillip was required. with In accordance complete RMA, dated Phillip's income, but Morain. but not Mr. said June not Morain. em 27, waiver RMA The by the 201 7. The from plaintiff Ms. Ms. plaintiff, subject RMA Phillip. thereafter Page ·4 of Morain sutrmined Furthermore, offered 9 Ms. ed an entirely submit by the Morain Ms Morain RMA a TPP. was new included signed and Ms. by Ms. [* 6] Through addressed a letter found eligible Affordable ..." The to Mr. Modification went the plaintiff. Jonas testified Gordon signature at pp. The Phillip. that Ms. "M"). version received materially other the for 1, 2017. plaintiff the Mr. no "J"). from two contained Ms. c for and to sign of the TPP repared, but Morain, LLC["CMS"] Exhibit (See, was Home needed versions different which TPP, Services, defendants December by the Housing the offer, payment of and to Ms. directly The Mr. by her. plaintiff the signature coimñied the document. signed which TPP, Morain, the TPP sign was the of to Ms. By mailing Morain and Morain Ms. version mailed Phillipalso to Ms. Morain the she Phillip. (See, 54-55). second impermissibly Ms. for one lines, first Ms. one that to accept that Administration Mortgage Carrington with Morain Is. attached which 5, 2017, notified the Federal under that the plaintiff the Morain, [FHA-HAMP] and "J" Exhibits (See, Ms. Modification make on October counseltransmitted on to explain and TPP, Inexplicably, Transcript and Loan Program further letter Morain's Morain for a"permanent the attached return to Ms. an e-mail Morain Morain, Ms. and Phillip, improperly and Mr. and Morain inter th as requesting, the plaintiff TPP ofthe and Ms. for the plaintiffwas Morain, version at d then prepared blocks improperly mt iled then alia. sent directly back directly to the plaintiff. Ms. the be for the loan. to sign that no but the that signed Phillip that explained testified similarly the TPP, Ms. one that was never testimony of the informed sought to have to the household that Ms. would she Morain and Ms. Phillip Phillip she thought to assume on The the loan. issues these to going to assume income, have later Ms. it was elieved because plaintiff as a contributor both both the TPP is credible respects. After prescribed Ms. April Mr. Morain and made by Ms. Morain. Morain, were thereby and 2018 and Phillip concludes in all testified period Ms. she had Court Morain trial respectively. 2018. Ms. Ms. Morain CMS However, signed Phillip the TPP, made three additic two and rejected all returned payments monthly nal payments, in March he April payment 2018 to her. In February Ms. Morain a permanent documents was plaintiff an Under the mortgage. an of income was At the and conterukd used in the a settlement and that review there thus Ms. agreement Ms. and is no dispute not was approval with Phillip. that required to of the Referee Page fimd Lance 5 of other with Ms. Phillip 9 sign loan the documents. would Phillip Ms. the made, plaintiff sent Among these to tl e mortgage, "K" t Exhibit a mortgage give were TPP relative (See. agreement, could Phillip conference by by the together agreement, modification Ho wever. and required modification to be signed had Property, payments modification the assumption to assume nonetheless loan the all assumption also contended owner after 2018, on have had aever the Property. subject been been hgreement the which and The obligated was not plaintiff because her modification Evtms in February 2018, Ms. Momin [* 7] that explained because she so doing Referee execute the would Evans plaintiff lailed contending because of guidelines 3408. loan did not said belatedly,on Ms. FFUD impose such Ms. a condition, said matter demand, agreement that contended for a her ring this forits authority again counsel, referred thus Phillip at p. 83) nodification loan a request reiterated and application, legal through Ms. that ( Tee, Transcript (14) permanent the Morain, and manner. plaintifrpresented sign to its demand for 2018. 22, in a timely 25, 2018, obligated a be a co-borrower, .e., loan, authority March by directive guidelines. granted Evans legal provide April was Phillip applicable Referee with the documents related waived. previously agreement modification assume to had and agreemer modification Phillip plaintiff the plaintiffto directed and that Ms. the above, to comply Uhimately permanent required have permanent the to sign as stated which, condition, The declined to CPLR§ pursuant to the the undersigned for a hearing. At the agreement and as an original which was related documents able an owner to mortgage, no explanation the Thus, testi related loan. with Property loan. Ms. convey fied permanent the issue that One Ms. (id). the error was Ms. that >artial becat However, or convey was mortgage, March 2018 that both has never Phillip Property. the listed Phillip claims se Ms. grant modification indicated to execute, Phillip to mortgage, and assurrption the proposed is that and the Property prior to and she that loan her in receipt plaintiff had never testified that she want her the further Morain Phillip, the Morain Ms. in Gordon mistakes. documents, Ms. other The she has no right these for and modification to assume and Property, Morain Ms. for grant, of the by the plaintiff. "K"). plaintiff contained to errors prepared Exhibit (See, by the prepared been had Gordon mortgagor. were admitted hearing, not does modification indicated did Ws. not signed have of a responsibility Morain Ms. the of ownership the by e ther loan would Phillip to share to have daughter was agreement that want not permanent the 3f or Ms. Phillip. On the requirement that in compliance that with the The to involved attorney, FHA the had evaluation he refused or evasive in its leuer that no personal of Ms. fy to legal in his permitted finds notincation to testi in June waived, that answers was the or even Moreover, Page was testimony opinions to the questions Ms. and posed 6 o f 9 the of this issuance though cf Gordol interpretations by Ms. without Morain's any when lacked had of to asked. counsel to be not in any been plaintiff the testified loan a basis and and case, submit loan. the npetent is testified Phillip the , and inco wholly Ms. t > assume complain facts further assume Phillip that agreement Glordon that required to the CPPB application definitions, that Phillip of modification "1"). the requirement 2017, knowledge Morain's Exhibit testified loa 1, Gordon loan permanent (See, to insist response his entire fetters. the Ms. the to assume 4000.1. Rules testimony position Gordon requests respects, Gordon's required sign contributor nonetheless further Court was Philip Handbook counsel was finds CMS' value. in document in all The Ms. a non-borrower the plaintiff Court contradictory fact or law. probative whether the plaintiffs although an RMA. of being s an He was. [* 8] Conclusions Law of Based upon evidence admitted a finding that the court's evidence into the plaintiff and records, at the hearing, testimony adduc the Court concludes that negotiate in good to negotiate in good not did credible the the record documentary supports amply R § 3408 to CPI pursuant faith the ed and numerous on grounds. execute an RMA, a known non-borrower, The plaintiff's and Here, required and constitutes bad loan within the plaintiff despite by Referee its prior to be signed Fourth, the guidelines that Ms. Re feree for authority Sixth, subrnitted also the loan. the Court that insistence Ms. that conditions Ms. Ms. for Phillip Morain to submit Philip its own by in June Morain's Ms. to concludes as a condition a TPP by transmittirg by and counsel attorneys, had to Ms. directly been previously Ms. and one of the version Morain Ms. sent despite Moreover, wa!s materially counsel directly TPP Philip, an RMA. submit Phillip Morain's of the TPP, The faith. Mr. by her, that as different only. the argument, Family plaintiff's bad constitutes to Ms. versions different materially Morain, Single The in >mail represented was to be signed Mr. plaintiff's in the FHA agreement an faith requirement and assume Court Housing insistence en the concludes, Handbook Policy that facts 4000.I she do so is yet the plaintiff is guilty of bad thith by failing, without Evans' directives on February 22, 2018 to exchange its dernand that consistent with on June plaintiff offered was alleged Ms. to the its attorneys. RMA an § 3408. also transmitted stated ;ubmit these a contributor her directly. counsel, Morain to of of 70 NY2d Ca, Phillip, have not the plaintiff's waiver Ins. through requirement mortgage in good of two Morain of any Ms. Phillip and the do not another law, require of example faith. Fifth, The she the plaintiff contrary that Phillip by that to contact v Fe deral facts, the the to negotiate to her to Ms. assume of CPLR transmittal waiver this Furthermore, Failed other of the TPP the version with the Phillip undisputed despite knowledge directly the plaintiff's and Corp required Ms. relinquishment ional have this that insistence is an inten would formalized meaning not Ms. of these RMA may its of Frank waived plaintiff that mortgage, Evans and by the plaintiff its bad full regulations and the because "Waiver mortgage. the RMA, view an faith presumed"(Gilbert HUD agreed In the plaintiff's Morain and modification. the faith Morain, Third, an "H"). assume directed it was if the to submit Second, to Ms. be lightly memorialized Exhibit a permanent RMA note not orally thereafter was obtain the even attorneys (See, an assume to submit counsel, not and [1988]). and 2017, failed and should right 968 966, plaintiff the First, then 27, 2017, offered no explanation consistent with for the Ms. Goldstehis A ttorney without the TPP, the length plaintiff's 120 nearly of failure e-mail, Phillip's Ms. time with ation, opy osing to timely counsel comply the legal an RMA. sign Phillip expku any but signature, days it took to negotiate Page the hast loan 7 of later, on with October to evaluate Ms. in good faith, 9 modification a contribution 25, Morain's 2017. application letter The application, from plaintiff which was her. has is [* 9] include Ms. Ms. offer plaintiff's example FHA Family the attorneys, constitute agreement that somehow Ms. a concerted to Referee of2017,represented application would from The in either or law, of Despite limit finds and inter of, its transmittal should make the whole aware that is why Ms. refused obligations under never been may Khan-Soleil of an action (Strunk to award ... sanctions. sound court's 161 Team, v New and discretion A D3d 1092, inter in law modification of an assumption that State want Ms. Phillip RMA from Ms. Phillip. by Ms. the nature the on 2013]). Dept [2d Court's costs of those 1093 Dept Moreover, been long which of assumption any because marks initiative own Ms. Phillip 779[2d and sanctions, and citations inter where, "The entrusted is generdily omitted]" alia, the resolution 2015]. Dept conduct frivolous at prolong to delay 126 AD3d for is frivolous Conduct to primarily of Elections, quotation would Property. 727 [internal had the mortgage, is impossiale Phillip a TPP for plaintiff ne loan, the Court that position This the to assu the the her counsel. and application therefrom. resulting Furthermore, no basis escape assume 3hillip Morain to the Phillip in futility. not did at tlae hearing argument not alia, M to Ms. had hearing and Ms. that Ms. from the no could TPP frivolous or is undertaken York [2d of one in June hearing a loan that plaintifTat agreement mortgage of the |1 1 AD3d merit without an and be imposed, v Rashad, it is completely faith its including en representation meaning plaintiff of the RMA did Phillip submit an owner is not and the made of an an exercise note the original Sanctions (see, alia. Phillip, at best, modification loan a had with requirement versions modification Ms. and inter to, another the co-owner its agents, herattorney. by the the of the alleged waiver process Morain Thus, was permanent faced and Ms. from Here, different loan Phillip constitute, Phillip and the writ upon Morain Ms. the when advanced defenses frivolous. the plaintiff clear application both they the materially plaintiff's assume necessary. thus the foregoing, the Morain who RMA that plaintiff is predicated Ms. its waiver alia, two of the Ms. deny conclusion an belief mistaken Catapano-Fox, that to obligated constitutes ion its attomeys, including actions Esq., not were but not to the permanent only, has also Court conseqüences and Phillip to without was the Qoldstein, be considered Ms. fact effort Robyn modifica loan its agents, to the worst, to. This s attorneys, and led to them At Ms. not did faith. plaintiff Morain. permanent the in good of the actions she is entitled of the plaintiff Morain was ations, that which 4001.1§Ill.A.2.v.(E)(S)(a)). Handbook Policy regu the precondition without Ilousing Ms. offer by HUD as required modification to negotiate with Property the loan to which incompetence, of the Single its failure Eighth, the plaintiff, loan RMA o l an based the TPP completed successfully a permanent refusal of Morain as an applicant, Phillip Morain the mortgage(see. the Ms. once Seventh, decision to the trial v Per fi>rmance Notaro 2018[). I For pursuant plainti the to CPi fî s position Before heard reasons must R expressed is without § 3408 during a sanction be accorded the course may (see, the above, rnerit. of be imposed Khan-Soleil this position plaintifPs the On hearing on a party v Rashad. Page 8 of that contntry, on is factuaH y and or its counsel. I I I AD3d 9 727). both it n the a reaso The facts without legall) in gotiated lable Court good the and law, faith the merit. opportunity therefore to be schedules [* 10] this as directed matter, plaintiffand and its counsel, the plaintiff fbr ORDERED, that from May ORDERED, that tolled hereby plaintiff's the Accordingly, this that LLC, and action; issues of whether abov is described of conduct merit : is without ofpanctions if any, the amount, the the in fact to be imposed counsel. the reasons all on the hearing Kosterich, delayed and and a sanctions A. Jeffrey has prolonged law; upon fbr below, stated and interest 1, 2017 late to the it is hereby: above, relative charges date of this the to Decision and t issue loan Order Bfter case in this and Hearing; are it is further, tolled from interest, 10 (ten) charges late days and hereof; Ms. offered loan; three payments guidelines, the conditions that or before January Morain Ms. I0, Kosterich, and LLC; LLC, action to the from that May reasonable December This via e-mail Dated: waived any to this Hear detailed pay ng; are hereby it is further, ff statement, to Ms. above, action and excluding within counsel NIorain's from Ms. Ms. Ms. loan loan a permanent Morain assume the loan; accepted as prescrihed and Morain; assun)e Phillip Phillip Ms. modification by agreemen and the HUD applicable nhodification the the without assume the loan on it is further, will at 88-11 the that that requirement be conducted Sutphin conduct merit law and to be imposed upon above the of plaintiff has prolonged and the plaintiff at New Jamaica, Boulevard, set forth in fact 7, 2019 on February and and 0:00 Y rk ant its del yed its counsel, a.m. in Courtroom 11435 relative counsel, this A. Jeffrey action; A. Jeffrey to the and the Kosterich, it is further, larnaica, Decernber that is awarded to the present, attorneys' of the the 1 4, 2018, the attorneys New Morain 1, 2017 constitutes to the Ms. amount ORDERED, before tolled the condition TPP to offer and sanctions ORDERED, this and are the permanent sign located whether of by 2019; is without if any, without the is directed issues: that relative After Order an updated fees the plaintiff that a hearing 45 of the Courthouse amount, a TPP Phillip ORDERED, following because prescribed plaintiff and it is further, that ORDERED, Decision provide and by the plaintiff incurred of this the plaintiff attorneys' that ORDERED, the fees to the date 1, 2017 May attorneys' all plaintifPs and submit Decision for the that the hearing fees to be awarded shah proof of service Order and serve Ms. Court, tion to her; and of this at the a copy with 7, 2019 on February a copy thereof of the in connec fees and counsel and plaintiff attorneys' ng. of wh ch is being York 4, 20 18 Page 9 of 9 also O der on all parties hear ( defense of relate it is further, Morain. M(U(iAN the shall L/ NCMAN on transrnitted or

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.