Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Chirinkin
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. Vivenzio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Zagari (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Ezeji (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Bank of New York Trust Co., N.A. v. Chiejina (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Bank of N.Y. Trust Co., N.A. v. Chiejina (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- PNC Bank, National Ass'n v. Campbell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Nelli Chirinkin and Alexei Chirinkin appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered February 7, 2014, which, after settlement conferences pursuant to CPLR 3408, denied their motion, inter alia, to restore the action to the mortgage foreclosure settlement conference part calendar.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants Nelli Chirinkin and Alexei Chirinkin (hereinafter together the defendants) failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff did not negotiate in good faith during the foreclosure settlement conferences (see CPLR 3408). There is nothing in the record to support the claim that the plaintiff engaged in conduct that improperly hindered the settlement process or needlessly prevented the parties from reaching a mutually agreeable resolution (see Flagstar Bank, FSB v Titus, 120 AD3d 469, 470 [2014]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Van Dyke, 101 AD3d 638, 638 [2012]; cf. U.S. Bank N.A. v Smith, 123 AD3d 914, 916 [2014]; US Bank N.A. v Sarmiento, 121 AD3d 187, 204-205 [2014]). Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff did not violate CPLR 3408 by refusing to lower the principal or the interest rate or by rejecting the terms of the defendants’ counteroffer (see Bank of Am., N.A. v Lucido, 114 AD3d 714, 715-716 [2014]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Van Dyke, 101 AD3d at 638). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion, inter alia, to restore the action to the mortgage foreclosure settlement conference part calendar. Dillon, J.P., Austin, Roman and Barros, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.