aurora loan services v weisblum respondents brief 22 oct 2010

8/6/2019 Aurora Loan Services v Weisblum Respondents Brief 22 Oct 2010

1/28

To be Argued by:F lNCEYJOHN( Tun e R e q ue s te d : 15Minutes)

\,

mttu l o r k . . r e m e Q t n u r t1 \ p v e U a k ilittiSitttt~ttnub i l e p a r t m .e * ' * .. O R I G I N A L...~~ ---- .......----\iWITHP~ Of

G~ . SERV IG f! Docket Nos.:~ ~1~~ AURO RA LO A N SE RV IC E S, LLe, 20t 0-03065. \ 'j 'VJ~ 2018-05864

Ptaintif f-Resporuient,

-against-

ST EV E N WE ISB LUM, PA TTIWE ISB LUM, JO S EPH 1N E CA IROand MORTGAG E E LE C TR O NIC SY STEM S, IN C .as N omin ee for L ehm an B ro th ers B an k, F SB ,

Defendants-Appellants.

B RIEF FO R PL AIN TIFF -R ESPO ND EN T

KNuCKLES, KOMOSINSKI &ELLIOTI, LLPA p pe ll at e C o u ns e l f o r P la in ti ff -R e sp o nd e n t5 65 T ax te r R oad , S uite 5 90E lm sfo rd, N ew Y o rk 1 05 23(914) 345-3020


2/28

TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGE

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .ii-ivCOUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED 1PREL.IMIN"ARY STATEMENT 2COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE RELEVANT FACTS .4STANDARD OF REVIEW 10LEGAL ARGUMENT 11

I. THE LOWER COURT'S ORDER HOLDING THAT AURORACOMPLIED WITH SERVICE OF THE RPAPL 1303 NOTICEMUST BE AFFIRMED 11

II. THE LOWER COURT'S FINDING THAT AURORA'SOMISSION IN SERVING PATTI WEISBLUM WAS NEITHERFATAL NOR PREJDUCIAL TO THE RIGHTS OF SAIDDEFENDANT MUST BE AFFIRMED 15

III. THE LOWER COURT'S HOLDING THAT AURORA HASSTANDING TO COMMENCE THE UNDERLYINGFORECLOSURE ACTION MUST BE UPHELD , ,19


3/28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASES PAGE

Countrywide Home Loans v. Brown,305 A.D.2d 626 (2d Dept. 2003) 16ICountrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Taylor,17 Misc. 3d 595, 598,843 N.Y.S.2d 495 (N.Y.Sup. 2007) 16First National Bank of Chicago v. Silver270 A.D.2d 667, 704 N.Y.S.2d 703 (2dDept. 2010) 2, 8,11,15,17Flyer v. Snllivan,284 A.D. 697, 134 N.Y.S.2d 521(18t Dept. 1954) 19Gala Trading, Inc. v. Adrienne, Inc.,174A.D.2d 478, 478 (lst Dept. 1991) 11Genway Corp. v. Elgut,177 A.D.2d 467,575 N.Y.S.2d 889 (2d Dept. 1991) .13Leyy v. Louvre Realty Co.,222 N.Y. 14,20 (Ist Dept. 1917) 19Matrix Financial Services Corp. v. McKiernan,295 A.D.2d 579,580, 744 N.Y.S.2d 706 (2d Dept. 2002) 13~ERSCORP, Inc. v. Romaine,8.N.Y.3d 90, 96,861 N.E.2d 81, 828 N.Y.S.2d, 266 (2006) 20Remington Investments, Inc. v. Seiden,240 A.D .2d 647 (2d Dept. 1997) 12

2007) , .


4/28

A.D .2d 375 (2d Dept. 1998) 13

WL 1425247 .16, 18W ieck v. H alpern, 255 A .D .2d 438 (2d Dept. 1999) 12Zuckerm an v. C ity of N ew Y ork,49 N .Y .2d 557,562 (N .Y . 1980) 6


5/28

STATUTESCPLR 2001 ._ to 1 . 6 , 1 8CPLR 3212 6RPAPL 1303 0 8,9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18,21RPAPL 1304 1, 3~5, 7, 9~15, 17, 18,21


6/28

COIJNTERSTATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED1. the lower court committed reversible error by finding that

Plaintiff-Respondent correctly effectuated service of the statutorynotice on Steven and Patti Weisblum in compliance with theRPAPL 1303?

2. Whether the lower court committed reversible error by granting thePlaintiff-Respondent's motion for summary judgment where theborrower-husband received the RPAPL 1304 notice butborrower-wife did not?

3. Whether the lower court erred in finding that that Plaintiff-Respondent had standing to commence the underlying foreclosureaction?


7/28

PRELIMINARY STATEMENTPlaintiff - Respondent, Aurora Loan LLC ("Aurora")

submits this brief in response consolidatedappeal filed by Defendants-Appellants, Steven and Patti Weisblum (collectively the "WeisblumDefendants"). The Weisblum Defendants appeal two decisions of theHonorable Mary H. Smith of Westchester County Supreme Court. In theCourt's first decision, dated February 25,2010 ("First Decision"), the CourtgrantedAurora's motion for summaryjudgment and concurrentlydenied theWeisblum Defendants' cross motion for dismissal. Thereafter, theWeisblum Defendants filed an application for renewal of their motion todismiss based on the Appellate Division, SecondDepartment's decision inFirst National Bank of Chicago v. Silver, 73A.D.3d 162,899 N.Y.S.2d256(2d Dept 2010). The lower Court in its decision dated, May 19, 2010("SecorId Decision"), granted the Weisblum Defendants' application forrenewal. However, on renewal the Court adhered to its First DecisiongrantingAurora summaryjudgment.

The instant appeal discusses three issues. The first issue on appeal iswhether service the statutorily 1 was

............."'' ' ' 'on


8/28

National case, supra, wherein the Second Department held that compliancewith the Home Equity Theft Prevention Act (HHEPTA"), specifically the

RPAPL 1303 notice, is a condition precedent to a Plaintiff lender'scommencement of a foreclosure action. In the matter at hand, upon renewal,the lower Court found that First National was distinguishable as dismissal inthe Appellate Division case was predicated on Plaintiffs total failure tocomply with service of the required RPAPL 1303 notice.

In contrast, a review of the record on appeal indicates that the lowerCourt found in its First Decision and reiterated in its Second Decision thatAurora did properly serve the statutory RPAPL 1303 notice.

With respect to the second issue regarding Aurora's omission to serveDefendant Patti Weisblum with the RPAPL 1304 notice, her husbandSteven Weisblum with whom she resides, was served with the 1304 notice.The lower Court held that since Steven Weisblum was served with thenotice, both Weisblum Defendants interposed an Answer, and bothWeisblum Defendants participated in the CPLR 3408 mandated settlementconference it was evident that Aurora's mistake was not prejudicial to theLA-F."""'" of Defendant Patti Weisblum.


9/28

valid assignment of mortgage was provided in the summary judgment papersthereby evidencing the validity of Aurora's standing.

COUNTERSTATMENT OF RELEVANT FACTSOn or about April 7, 2006, Steven Weisblum took out a loan in the

amount of $672,000.00 from Credit Suisse ("First Loan") with MortgageElectronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") as its nominee and, forrecording purposes, as mortgagee of record This loan was secured by amortgage on real property located at 48 Rockridge Drive, Rye Brook, NewYork 10573 ("Premises") (R. 64 - 82).

Thereafter on or about November 16, 2006, Credit Suisse throughMERS as it s nominee assigned the First Loan to DLJ Mortgage Capital(R.84, R.116). The First Loan was again assigned on or about December 8,2006, from Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Successor by Merger to Wens FargoHome Mortgage, Inc., as Attorney inFact for DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., toLehman Brothers Bank, FSB. (R.87 - 88, R.116). This First Loan wassubsequently assigned by Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB to MERS as nominee

Lehman Brothers Bank, FSBue


10/28

purposes of recording, asmortgagee of record (R. 93-Ill). The Second Loan was also secured by amortgage on the Premises. On that same date, the First Loan and the SecondLoan were consolidated to form a single lien in the amount of $704,000.00by virtue of a consolidation, extension, modification, agreement ("CEMA")payable to Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB with MERS as its nominee and, forpurposes of recording, as mortgagee of record (R.112 - 119). On the CEMAdocument, the borrowers are identified as Patti and Steven Weisblum 1.Finally, on or about January 16, 2009, MERS, as nominee for LehmanBrothers Bank, FSB and mortgagee of record, assigned the note andmortgage as consolidated ("Consolidated Loan") to Aurora (R.120).

Thereafter, on or about April 1, 2007 the Weisblum Defendantsdefaulted in making their monthly mortgage payments. On or aboutDecember 11, 2008, the RPAPL 1304 ninety-day notice was sent viaregular and certified mail to Steven Weisblum at the address for thePremises (R.63). By that date, Steven Weisblum was already 620 days in

1 Notably, page section III of the"Consolidated which should


11/28

default on his mortgage payments.Aurora commenced its foreclosure action by filing the Summons

and Complaint with the Westchester County Clerk on March 30, 2009 (R.1 133). Steven Weisblum was served via nail and mail service with acopy of the Summons and Complaint together with the RPAPL 1303Notice printed on a blue sheet of paper mailed to his attention at thePremises CR. 138). PattiWeisblum was also served via-nailand mail servicewith a copy of the Summons and Complaint together with the RPAPL 1303 notice printed on a blue sheet of paper mailed to her attention at thePremises CR. 139). Thereafter, issue was joined on or about May 4, 2009C R . 148 - 151).

Aurora filed for summary judgment by motion dated June 8, 2009 CR.33-35). Thereafter and pursuant to CPLR 3408, settlement conferences wereheld on July 2, July 16, September 29, and November 5,2009 (R.155). Eachconference included the participation and involvement of both WeisblumDefendants and their counsel. As this matter could not be settled, onNovember 5, 2009, it was removed from the Foreclosure Conference Partand assigned to an IAS of the County


12/28

Weisblum Defendants' cross-movedNovember 2009 inter alia, that Aurora failed to comply with the

notice requirements ofRPAPL 1303, RPAPL 1304, and lacked standingto commence the foreclosure action (R. 152 - l81).

By decision dated February 25, 2010, Judge Smith granted Aurora'smotion for summary judgment and denied the Weisblum Defendants'motion to dismiss in its entirety C R . 20 - 26). With regards to the allegationof improper service of the 1303 notice, the lower court held that theWeisblum Defendants' "bald assertion" without more was insufficient toraise a triable issue of fact, and as such, was dismissed (R. 20 26). Withregards to Aurora's omission to serve the RPAPL 1304 notice on PattiWeisblum, the lower Court ultimately held that Patti Weisblum was entitledto same, however, the lower Court determined that the omission was notfatal, Simply stated, the Court found that Aurora's omission in failing toserve Patti Weisblum with the 1304 notice was not prejudicial as herhusband Steven Weisblum, with whom she resides, did receive said noticeand she was able to participate in the settlement conferences. In addition,the Court found that she did not a substantive defense the foreclosure


13/28

"The inescapable fact is that defendants are in defaultof their mortgage and have been so since April, 2007.There is no reason in law or equity as to why plaintiffshould not be entitled to proceed to judgment" (R. 26).Finally, the lower Court found that standing was not an issue as

Aurora sufficiently plead that it was the holder of the mortgage and providedthe assignment of mortgage evidencing said possession (R. 20 - 26).

Thereafter, the Weisblum Defendants' filed an order to show causeseeking an Order granting them leave to renew the Court's First Decisionbased on the Appellate Division, Second Department's March 29, 2010decision in First National Bank of Chicago v. Silver, 73 A.d.3d 165, 899N.y.s.2d 256 (2d Dept. 2010). Upon renewal, the Weisblum Defendantssought reversal of the lower's Court holding (R. 12 -18).

The lower Court granted the Weisblum Defendants motion forrenewal but adhered to its original position (R. 4 - 8). The motion courtfound that the facts of the First National case were distinguishable fromthose of the instant matter. Specifically, in First National, the SecondDepartment held that compliance with HEPTA, and specifically the Noticerequired by RPAPL 1303, was a condition precedent to commencement of

4


14/28

total failure to serve or allege compliance with 1303 notice. Whereas,in this matter the lower court opined:

"Here, this Court previously had fonnd that Plaintiffproperly had served both defendants Weisblum withthe statutory notice required by RPAPL 1303; thusdefendants Weisblum's argument herein that plaintiff'snon-compliance with RPAPL 1303 requires dismissalof the Complaint is simply factually incorrect"(emphasis added) (R.7)

Furthermore, the lower Court held that failure to serve Patti Weisblumwith the RPAPL 1304 notice was not fatal as Steven Weisblum, Patti'shusband and the individual with whom she resides, received the notice andboth the Weisblum Defendants were able to participate in the settlementconferences (R. 4 - 8). The Court went on to further state:

"In this Court's view, upon these prevailingcircumstances, which clearly demonstrate that defendantPatti Weisblum has been afforded 'great protection' withrespect to this foreclosure and that she had either actualor constructive notice of RPAPL 1304 by virtue ofservice of same upon her husband, there is no basis fordismissal of plaintiff's complaint which would requireplaintiff to "start all over" notwithstanding thatdefendants have not made mortgage payments 2007the


15/28

Accordingly, the lower Court's First Decision in favor of Aurora wasupheld in the Court's Second Decision. The Weisblum Defendantsmove to appeal both of the lower Court's '-""'.........,........

STA ND AR D O F R EVIEWCPLR 3212 provides that a motion for summary judgment must be

granted if "upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action ordefense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter oflaw in directing judgment in favor of any party." "To obtain summaryjudgment it is necessary that the movant establish his cause of action ordefense 'sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directingjudgment' in his favor (CPLR 3212, subd [b]), and he must do so by tenderof evidentiary proof in admissible form." Zuckerman v. City of New York,49 N.Y.2d 557, 562 (N.Y. 1980). "On the other hand, to defeat a motion forsummary judgment the opposing party must 'show facts sufficient to requirea trial of any issue of fact' (CPLR 3212, subd [b])." Id. at 562.

Meanwhile, "one opposing a motion for summary judgment mustvy,...vv evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a


16/28

admissible form; mere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiatedallegations or assertions are insufficient." at "Only a genuine issue

will defeat summary judgment." Gala Trading. Inc. v. Adrienne, Inc., 174A.D.2d 478,478 (1st Dept. 1991). "A shadowy semblance of an issue willnot suffice." Id. at 478.

It is respectfully submitted that the foregoing discussion along withthe record on appeal demonstrates that Aurora was entitled to summaryjudgment as a matter of law.

LEGAL ARGUMENT

POINT ITHE LOWER COURT'S ORDER HOLDING THAT

AURO RA COMPLIED W ITH SERVICE O F THE R PA PL 1303NOTICE MUST BE AFFIRMED

As way of background, HEPTA was passed in 2006 and involvedrevisions to the Banking Law, Real Property Law, and Real PropertyActions and Proceedings Law. One such change brought on by HEPTA was

statutory [RPAPL 1303] was


17/28

"the underlying purpose of HEPTA was to afford ......":."t"'r protections tohomeowners confronted with foreclosure." Id,

The RPAPL 1303 notice that resulted from the HEPTA enactmentwas very specific. "The notice required by this section shall be deliveredwith the summons and complaint to commence a foreclosure action. Thenotice required by this section shall be in bold, fourteen point type and shallbe printed on colored paper that is other than the color of the summons andcomplaint, and the title of the notice shall be in bold, twenty-point type. Thenotice shall be on its own page." Id. at 259 citing RPAPL 1303(2).Moreover, "the foreclosing party has the burden of showing compliancetherewith and, if it fails to demonstrate such compliance, the foreclosureaction will be dismissed." Id.

A duly sworn affidavit of service by an indifferent person such as aprocess server constitutes prima facie proof of due and proper service of thesummons and complaint. See Wieck v. Halpern, 255 A.D.2d 438 (2d Dept.1999); See also Remington Investments, Inc. v. Seiden, 240 A.D.2d 647 (2dDept. 1997). A sworn conclusory denial of service without anything moresubstantial is insufficient as a matter of law to the


18/28

1998); 295 A.D.2d579,580, 744 N.Y.S.2d 706 (2d Dept. 2002) (Court held that a process

filed affidavit of service pursuant to CPLR 30S(4) was sufficientproof of valid service).

To rebut the presumption of service, the Defendants are required toprovide an Affidavit wherein they swear to specific facts to rebut thestatements in the process server's affidavit. See Simonds v.Grohman, 277A.D.2d 369, 716 N.Y.S.2d 692 (2dDept. 2000). Genway Corp. v. BIgot,177A.D.2d 467,575 N.Y.S.2d 889 (2d Dept. 1991).

Inthe instant action, the Weisblum Defendants were both served withthe summons, complaint and RPAPL 1303 notice pursuant to CPLR308(4). Thereafter, the process server filed a duly sworn affidavit of serviceattesting to service of the "Notice required by RPAPL Section 1303, whichNotice, as served, was printed on blue paper, the title of the Notice appearedto be in bold 20-point type, and the text appeared to be in bold, 14 pointtype ...... " (R. 138 - 139). This sworn affidavit filed with the WestchesterCounty Clerk is prima facie proof of service of the RPAPL 1303 notice inaccordance with HEPTA contrary to the Weisblum Defendants'


19/28

Weisblum Defendants have offered the Irnn,13'" Court herein and that must beheld as insufficient as a matter law rebut the presumption of valid

service obtained by the affidavit of an impartial third party such as theprocess server.

Moreover, First National is distinguishable from the instant case asthe lender therein did not dispute or assert compliance with RPAPL 1303but rather described the issue as a "red herring", First National Bank ofChicago, 899 N.Y.S. 2d at 261. Aurora acknowledges and appreciates theimportance of RPAPL 1303 but avers that the required statutory noticewas served incompliance with the relevant statute. In conjunction with theprocess server's sworn affidavit, counsel for Aurora filed an affirmationconfirming the use of the colored paper for the statutory notice.

The lower's court holding was correct in finding that Aurora hadproperly served the Weisblum Defendants' with the RPAPL 1303 statutorynotice. Accordingly, the holding of the lower court should be upheld.


20/28

POINT IITHE LOWER COURT'S FINDING THAT AURORA'S OMISSION

IN SERVING PATTI WE.ISBLUMWAS NEITHER FATALNOR PREJDUCIAL TO THE RIGHTS OF SAID

DEFENDANT MUST BE AFFIRMEDRPAPL 1304 requires a lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer

with respect to high cost, subprime home, or non-traditional home loans[prior to amendment] to send a borrower a notice ninety days beforecommencing a foreclosure action notifying the borrower that legal action,such as a foreclosure, may be taken against the borrower. Said notice mustappear in at least fourteen-point type and must contain the warning regardingthe borrower's potential to lose their home and provide informationregarding financial assistance. See RPAPL 1304. In discussing thepurpose of HEPTA and its notices, including RPAPL 1304, the SecondDepartment held that, "the underlying purpose of HEPTA was to affordgreater protections to homeowners confronted with foreclosure." FirstNational Bank of Chicago v. Silver, 899 N.Y.S.2d at 258.

The Suffolk County Supreme Court further expounded on the intent of


21/28

and guard the precious asset of home equity, and the social as well as the... . """-"LL"-"CLLLV value of homeownership' 'the and of this

section [Section 3D] are to ensure, foster and encourage fair dealing inthe sale and purchase of homes in foreclosure or default. ..and to preserveand protect home equity for the homeowners in this state.' " CountrywideHome Loans, Inc. v. Taylor. 17 Misc. 3d 595, 598, 843 N.Y.S.2d 495(N.Y.Sup.2007).

CPLR 2001 holds that "[ajt any stage of an action, the Court maypermit a mistake, omission, defect or irregularity to be corrected, upon suchterms as may be just, or, ifa substantial right of a party is not prejudiced, themistake, omission, defect or irregularity shall be disregarded." This was theexact basis for the Court's finding that Plaintiff lender's failure to strictlycomply with HEPTA's notice requirement was not fatal. Trustco Bank v.Alexander, 23 Misc. 3d 1129[A], 2009 WL 1425247. The Courtemphasized that the borrower's rights were not jeopardized by Plaintifflender's mistake as the borrower subsequently retained counsel andanswered the complaint Id. As such, the Court utilized its discretionarypower to determine that the failure to serve the 1303 notice was


22/28

Here, Aurora did properly serve Steven Weisblum with RPAPL 1304 notice via certified and mail, which was addressed to himaddress for the Premises' (R. 63). While Patti Weisblum was mistakenly notsent a copy of the specific 1304 notice, the lower Court held that thisomission was not prejudicial. Since Patti Weisblum was served with thesummons, complaint, the 1303 notice and was able to partake in thesettlement discussions and negotiations with the assistance of counsel, thelower Court held that Patti Weisblum was still "afforded greater protectionsfor homeowners in foreclosure' as intended by the Legislature inpromulgating HEPTA. The lower Court further held that requiring Aurorato recommence a foreclosure action because of a non-prejudicial mistake,especially since the Weisblum Defendants failed to interpose a meritoriousdefense to the foreclosure action, would be detrimental to both parties. Infact, such a finding would simply continue to strip any equity that theWeisblum Defendants have in the Premises while Aurora would be free tosimply recommence the foreclosure action with the service of the 1304notice on Patti Weisblum. Such a decision would be in direct conflict withthe purpose of HEPTA wherein the legislature identified the "policy of the


23/28

to nrpI'lPTl.1P and guard the UJ.'vvJ.Vlel" asset of home equity."argument, this case mote

Inthe latter case, plaintiff lender completely failed to provide the statutory 1303 notice, which is not the case here. Similar to the facts of Trustco, theWeisblum Defendants were aware of the impending foreclosure actionthrough service of the RPAPL 1304 notice on husband Steven Weisblum,and service of process of the summons, complaint and RPAPL 1303 noticeon both Weisblum Defendants. Neither Defendant was deprived of asubstantial right as a consequence of Aurora's failure to serve the RPAPL 1304 notice on Patti Weisblum.

Inaccordance with the lower Court's statutory power allotted throughCPLR 2001, it was correctly found that the omission in serving PattiWeisblum with the RPAPL 1304 notice was neither prejudicial to therights of Patti Weisblum nor fatal to Aurora's foreclosure action. Thus, thelower's court ruling should be upheld.


24/28


25/28

With respect to the issue of the authority of MERS to assignmortgages, the Court of Appeals has agreed that MERS is a system designed

to track ownership interest in the secondary residential mortgage marketMERSCORP, Inc. v. Romaine, 8 N.Y.3d 90, 96, 861 N.E.2d 81, 828N.Y.S.2d,266 (2006). Specifically, mortgage lenders become members ofthe MERSsystem to track the ownership and transfer of the mortgages.More importantly, there is a contractual agreement that eachMERS memberwill appoint MERS to be their agent. Id. As can be seen in the underlyingrecord at page 120, Joann Rein, Vice-President ofMERS, and acting as theagent of Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, assigned the instant mortgage to thePlaintiff-Respondent Aurora herein. Pursuant to the terms of the MERSsubscription, as described by the Court of Appeals in MERSCORP, Inc. v.Romaine, supra, Joann Rein had authority through Lehman's status as aMERS member to assign this mortgage to Aurora.

With respect to the Weisblum Defendants allegations that LehmanBrother Bank, FSB did not have the authority to transfer the mortgage hereindue to the pendency of the bankruptcy proceeding, the lower Courtdismissed that allegation as it was raised a conclusory fashion


26/28

in a conclusionary fashion such that the lower Court found that it held noimport. Accordingly, Aurora was found to possess standing in the

foreclosure action by providing the assignment of mortgage and therebywarranting summary judgment Therefore, on appeal the lower's courtdecisionshouldbe upheld.


27/28

CONCLUS IONThe record before the lower court and now before Court on appeal

demonstrates that Aurora did properly serve the RPAPL 1303 notice anddid have standing to commence the underlying foreclosure action. WhileAurora did fail to deliver the RPAPL 1304 notice on Defendant PattiWeisblum, said mistake was not prejudicial to the rights of Patti Weisblumand thus was not fatal to Aurora's action. Accordingly the decision of thelower court should be affirmed and the appeal dismissed, together withremuneration to Plaintiff-Respondent for the costs of this appeal

Dated: Elmsford, New YorkOctober 21,2010

Respectfully submi ed,Knuckles, Komosi ski &Elliott, LLP


28/28

aurora loan services v weisblum respondents brief 22 oct 2010

Documents