Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Blount

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Blount 2024 NY Slip Op 33643(U) October 9, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 15194/2008 Judge: Derefim B. Neckles 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.

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/11/2024 INDEX NO. 15194/2008 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 ; RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2024 J l At an lAS Tenn, Part FRP-2 of the Sup_r~tnt ~ourt of the State -of Ne;w- York; held in. and for the·.

County of Kings, at the Courth91:-1~e.-at360. A4ains Str(:et;_ B_:tooklyn,,N~w York:, :11201 .on the9th day I of October, io2f PRE.SENT:, ~- . - - .

HO}{. DEREFIM B.,NECKLE~ i Acting Justice; . · .- ---;- - . . - -- - ---: -. .-- -.- . - -.: - -- - ' - .-_ -- -.' .x DEfffS_CfIE B".\NK}{A.l]ONAL TRU:ST _ _ Cb:MPANY AS TRUSTEE'.FOR TH:E-REGISTERED HOLDEROF.MQRG-AN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL ii:Nd .TRUST2()07..HEi. MORTGAGE -- PA~~~THROVdH CERTIFlCATE:$,.SERJES, 2007~.HEl, i i r,- -against- Index,No·.- l 5l94i2008 i' tJjUANABLOUNT, NEW YORK:·CITY I::NVtORNMENTAL.CQNTROLBOARD, NEW YOR((CITY PARNi.ING VIOLATIONS BUREAU, NEWiYoRK.crry·:ruNSi1<wnm1cATION · • - j .. -. . . . . . . .. . . .

BUREAU UMLICVPLLV RONALirBLODNT •• • • I • .' ... , • •• ·_. • - ·• ., •• • '

CANJDlCE.MORSON . ' '! . '·· ,"- i : Defendants. - - -.-.:.·f_-'- - - - ----., ~:.:. - - - =- ___ ,. - --.,-- -- - .:_. - ~ ~----: ......;.x { The f~llo.wing .e..:ftled papers. read herein: NYSCEF Doc Nor:; f . . . -· . ·Notic9 of -Moti(!ti/Affid,~v:iis (Affmnatio_ns) Annexed Oppe~ition Affirmation to. Motion:- 39-46 Replr)Affinnation fo Opposition ·48-52 ' .

I l - - - j Upon the . foteg9ing papers'inthis_.proceeding·to forecloseamortgag~ encum_beririg- i. - \ . . . . . .. . tlie :re$.:l..prqper-ty!foi;:ated. .. ! . '• . at. 445. . Warr.en . . :Street, . Brooklyn,.NY . 11217, plaintiff . moves (.under i• tn9t ~e_q. ! _5) for· ah or.d,.e.r. (l). ·awarding. ,.plaintiff. sumntary-. judgment . ·a:ga'ir1$t .. . 'd¢fendalit 'tijumta Blount p1.JrSiiant to <CPLR §3212, (2) ~tdJdng the. v~tified. answer interposed q:n L . . · -beha.t~ of '.de:fendaµt,: :(3) .awarding ·p1~b'ltiff dc;.fi.l~It.j u~gment pursuant to c·PLR §3 .'.2-1 5 j. .

t,. f •- - .... ,•, ... ,-L.i•.,,, ....~ ~~ _,_• · O ___ ........,i•_ ........,. •• ~.,,, .. , • • • w - w • ' ,_.,...,, ~ •"':".-,_, _ _ _ _. . . . . . , . . 'M • • .. • •.,.._•_.., • ,-•~._. • • .•••• • ..., , .. ~• •• I

Bat;kgroimd ; ! ·p1a~ntiff:co~inenced this ac.tion -on M~y-23,: 20(18-,, and de_fertdant Tijuana_ Blount: i1.

interi,osed a verified ·answer oµ July 3l, 2008:, Pfa intjff was previously granted' a motion ,•,. for s~mrn!U'Y judgrnent:and ru1. ord.er qfref~rence on April 22, 2016. Defendant app.ealed·- l this ~tder~ a_hd the:Appellat~>Divis10Ii partially revers:e4 the: branch¢s of the q_rder stfi_lq11g ! . h •

. ' ~ . ., - . .. . . . - .

defertdant'·s.answer and affinnativedefenses, and for.an order.of reference. The App·ellate ! _; . ·) . .i . . . . . . ' . -· .Divi~i6rt fo:und that pf_aintiff faile.tl to establish- the admissibility -of records under the ! . ' busit::s~ t'~cords exceptionas the mortgage servicer' s empJoyee did not:.attesuhat he ~as pers1naHy-fam.iliarwith the record keeving practices and procedures ofplaintiff While, the· app~l ·i· w~~r.pendjng;'.th_e . c,o.urt.granted . plaintiff an order for a .judgment Qf foreclosure. and ..

:sale .4ne _I ariu;µ-y 7, 2019. The parties·tl)en. fil¢d a ~O"Qrdered stipu~atiori.vacating and setting: ·1 . as-idehhej :i ud·gment of foreclosure and:.sale. .... ·. ! Plaintiff now files theinstruit inotio_i;l- ~• it.s:'-::iecortd art~~pt fot-sum~ary judgm,,;m,t.. ~ . ' a._gai~t Ate· defendant..

Discussio'n Ii (: The propon¢nt . ofa-:summrtryjudgmentmotion . must make-.a pdma 4cie_c'showfog ,. . of ' j, enfjtl~ment to juµg·m~nt' 1''S ~.:in~tl~r-,0f' I.aw~ tenderihg s1.1fficient eviden(:e to de111onsti;ate, ,j !

1he:a1senc·e ofati.y rnaterial i_s'sues.-offact; (Alvar~y,, l'rospe.c"f lfosp., 68·N;Y.'2d: 3,20; '3.24i ! ' ' .

I j

50.l r:E.-2d 572, 57.4 (198t5)). The plain~ff has est~µlisbed its pifrrta facie ·entitlelJ).en~ to fore9Iosure as a :matter of law by suhilJ.lµing evidence· of the ~x:ecutiqn· of th:e nQte a:nci :i rnortkage and defendant!s failure to make payment in accordance with. its terms (J?GH J Reµlty· Cr,etjit Corp'. v~ V!W Reqlty Corp,, .647 N,Y.S,2d:229 {J9"96)). :Qnce this :showing -i has·~een made, however; the burd'en._shifts toth'.e·party·oppos1ng th~ motiohfqt·summafy ,; -~ jud~·ent to ,,produce· evidentiacy: proof in ·admis~ible forni -suffi.ci~t to ·establis!i th,:e ex'istfll,C~, ofmateria,1 iss'µes pf fact whi_ch require· a trial of th,eaciion (Zuckerman V, City of New',yor.k,· !. ' 427N,Y;S2cL595), . . -. . .. ;

! While. plaintiff contends.·that they have. esta:blishe~ a prima. facie.entitle~en:t to: i ' . ' ' '

., fore.o)osm;e: "i by s.ubinitting ~vid¢11¢e . of the note -and n1ortgage • and· the defendant's- default~-~ . ' .~ . . _. . . ~ ther~ still remains the iss1,1e. :of whether ·the _plaintiff .complied with the ;defatilt notice ~ \ ' ' ' .' '' requirement!'> . i of the ~- mortgage. ' Plaintiff submits. an ~ffidavit from Richatd Tr1~ta:n, tlre- _ s_e~i~r loan analyst of Qcwen Fi_nan~ia.LCorporatfon, ·stating that heis personally familiar •with )~nd·routirtelyreviews the business·•.s.s.~rvidng records·. . . - Tdstan. refers._to a copy ofthe ...

.j , , 7-, No.ti e of D~fault Jetter, with an unsia;ned USPS: certified :mai,l label, dated March 7,. 2.QD8,_ -indic.rting that the de-fault1ettet was, mailed to the de~ndant. Like the-plai1].tiff'1p lf~BC Mtge] Cqrp. :y. (Jerber~ the unsitbst~n,tia;ted and conclusozy statements, in fhe servicer-'s i !

affi~Vit that the te,quired: noti~e ofd!=(ault \3/as seot h:i. ac.cord@~e-witl;l, the tenns 1ofthe -~ rry.ort$agl!, ·combirte~f \Vith the· c:.op):'. of tJJ.e notice: of default~ failei;t' to esta.bJi~h. tlJJt.t the. i :tequ'ifeq .notice. Wi3:$ qt.aile_dtq tqe,.d.efendapt.:(lO() ,A;D,3d 9'66, 967 (2012)). ) :I -~~ ,!

!

I Additionitlly, ·successive motions for SupiinaryjU:dginent a_re disf4vo_ red and shoµld l only !be entertained when they ·are -substantively -valid and the granting of the motion will . i:, furth~r the end of ju.stice and ·eliminate unnecess~ burden on the resources ofthe :courts· i (Gra~ilfr! v. City ofNew York, 24 ~LY.S,_3d 754). t' Here,_pfairttiff is making its second ,attem:pt at stumnaty judgment, but fails to I • , , , '

! ' est_ab1ish that ·it. complied .w ith defiultnotice-.requirements of-the .mortgage ..Plaintiff fails I , ', t9 pt~ve that t:his motion is substantively vi;1tid.

I - i i Accd,rdirigly,~ I . it is ~ i ORDE-RED that-piaiti.tiff's rnotion :fcfr •sqmmaryjuqgment is denie.d in its ~ntirety. ! 'I : This constitutes the:decision ·and order of the ·c o.urt. !

I ENtE~ !

,._, ~ ~ z -- . C) c:, c-, en ...,g -c: :z: rrt-1 0-< )> (") r- c;;; rr, :::0 C ::::1- <II