Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Bedell2017 NY Slip Op 32528(U)

September 20, 2017Supreme Court, Suffolk CountyDocket Number: 16603/2012

Judge: Jr., Howard H. HeckmanCases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001(U), are republished from various New YorkState 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.

Short r onn Order

SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK IAS PART 18 - SUFFOLK COUNTY con

PRESENT: HON. HOW ARD H. HECKMAN JR., J.S.C.

----------------------------------------------------------------)( WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Plaintiffs,

-against-

WILLIAM BEDELL A/Kl A WILLIAM A. BEDELL III,

Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------------X

INDEX NO.: 1660312012 MOTION DATE: 06/ 13/2017 MOTION SEQ. NO.: 001 MD

002 MotD 003 MD

PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 80 BUSINESS PARK DR., STE. 110 ARMONK, NY 10504

DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY: ZINKER & HERZBERG, LLP 300 RAB RO DR., STE. 104 HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788

Upon the following papers numbered I to 25 read on this motion : Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause and supporting papers 1-6 (#00 I). 7-14(#002). I 5-1 8 (#003) ; Notice of Cross Motion and. supporting papers 19-20 ; Answering Affidavits and supporting papers_; Replying Affidavits and supporting papers 21 -23 : Other 24-25 ; (and after hearing counsel in support and opposed to the motion) it is,

ORDERED that this motion (#001) by defendant William Bedell for an order pursuant to CPLR 3124 compelling the plaintiff to provide adequate responses to the defendant's discovery demands is denied. Any remaining discovery issues are hereby referred to conference; and it is further

ORDERED that the cross motion (#002) by plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. seeking an order: 1) granting summary judgment striking the answer of defendant William Bedell; 2) discontinuing the action against defendants designated as "John Doe l" trrrough "John Doe 25"; 3) deeming all appearing and non-appearing defendants in default; 4) amending the caption; and 5) appointing a referee to compute the sums due and owing to the plaintiff in this mortgage foreclosure action is granted to the following extent:

ORDERED that plaintiff is awarded partial summary judgment dismissing all affirmative defenses set forth in defendants" answer except the fourth affirmative defense set forth in defendant' s answer related solely to the plaintifrs compliance with RPAPL 1304; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiffs application to discontinue this action against defendants designated as "John Doe #1" through "John Doe #25'' is granted and the caption is hereby amended; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiffs application for an order appointing a referee to compute amounts due is denied without prejudice, as such request is premature. The proposed order submitted by the

[* 1][* 1]

plaintiff shall be 11iarJ..c.:<l .. lhll signed··: and it i:-; runher

OIH>ERED that the motion U/003) h) <lc!endant Beddl seeking an order dismissing plainti rr s complaint pursuant to CPLR I 018 & 3211(a)(3 )& G BL DO is denied: and it is further

ORDEREO thJt pl rsuant to CJ>LR 32 I 2(g) in aid for dispnsition or the at.:ti .. m. the sole remaining issue to he determined in this foreclosure action shall concern whether the plaintiff complied with prc-fon.:closurc RP/\PL 1304 90-day notice requirements and the trial of this action "h:ill he lirnilt•d In 1hat i<.;<.;IJI'. nnd it j<.; r11rthl'r

ORDEIU:D that all parties shaJI appear for a court conlcrcm:c to rt::ady this rnalter for trial or to provide a briefing schedule for an additional summary judgment motion (sc>e Kolc1/ Dmnsek Elie:er. Inc. 1·. Sclllesi11ger. 139 /\D3d 810. 33 NYS3d 284 (2"1 Dept.. 2016)) al 9:3;) a.m. on Oetoher l 0. 20 17 al tht: Supreme Court Courthouse locah.:d at 1 Court Street, 3"1 Fl nor. Part 18. Ri verhead. NY: and it is further

OIH>EREO that pluintiff is directed lo serve u copy of this order amending the caption upon the C'alt..:ndar Clerk of the Court: and it is further

ORDEIH~D that plaintiff is directed to file a notice of entry within live day~ of receipt oCthis Order pursuant to 22 YCRR Section 202.5-b(h)(J ).

Plaintifrs action seeks to foreclose a mortgage in the original sum of $336,000.00 executed by dclcndam William Bedell on May 7. 2007 in favor of World Savings Bank. FS13 On the same dme defendant Bedell also executed a promissory note promising to re-pay the entire amount of the inckbtcdncss to the mortgage lender. Plaintiff obtained O'r\ ncr. hip of the note anc.l mortgage as a result or a merger with the original mortgage lender. Plaintiff claims that delcndant Bedell defaulted under the tt:nns or the mnrtgage and note by failing to make timely monthly mortgage payments beginning ovcmhc:r I. 2011 and continuing to this d:.iy. Plaintiff com111enccd this action hy filing a summons. complaint and notice or pcndency in the Suffolk County Clerk· s Orficc on May 30, 2012. Plaintiff's cross motion scl.!ks an order granting summary judgment striking defendant's answer nnd for thc appointment or a referee.

Defendant submits two motions. The lirst motion seeks rcsponscs to dekndant's discovery dcmands; the second mn!ion secks dismissal of the complain I on the has is that the current asc.;ignl..'.t:lrc:al party in interest. MTG!./\ Investors. LP, is not authorized lo do business in New York and therefore lcH:ks standing to continue to prosecute this action. Dclcndanrs opposition to plaintirrs surnmar~ judg111c11t l11lllio11 raiscs dcli.:nses concerning plaintilrs failure lo produce a certificate or conformity from its primary out-of'.-s•atc (Texas) witness: plaintifl's lack t'rstanding: and plaintilrs fa•lure lo submit sunicicnl admissihk C\ idence to prove that it scr\nl prc-forednsurc default 1llHiccs in t'ompliam:c "ith the mortgage and RPt\PL 1304 rc:quirl'mcnts. Dcli:rnlmt also Sl'el..:s a computation hcaring before the court appointed rcli:rcc to cross c:xrnni111.: 11e mortgage knder·s rcpresentatiw concerning. the amount of monies due the plaintiff as a result of the dclendant's dcbult.

With resplTt lo plai1Hilrs application for an award of'sun1111<.11) judgment. cntitlcmenl to

-"-

[* 2][* 2]

summaryjudgmc1H in fornr 11flhc foreclosing rlaintiffis l'Stahlishl.!d. prima focie by lhl.! plaintiffs production or the mortgagl' anJ the unpaid IHltL'. and 1.!Videm:e or defoult in pa~ llh. nl (see IJ'e/f\' 1'c1rgo /Jank .\' . .-1. 1· f:"rohoho. 12 7 1\03d I I 7(1 . 9 'YS3d 312 ( 2'"1 Dcpl.. 2015 ): Jl'ells Fargo Hu11k. .\'., I 1· .Iii. 122 t\l)}d T26. 995 N YS2d TVi (1"J Dept.. 2014)). PlaintilThas ~ubmilled suflicicnt prnnr in suppo11 of its motion includinl! copies or the promissory note and mortgage signed by lktkll. together with an anidavit from the plainti!rs \·ice president of'l<'<111 doc:uml'ntation whil'i1 satisfies the business records exception lo the hl.!arsay rul<: (CPLR 4518) und docs not require a

cerli lie ate of con fonni ty. The adm issi bk evidence submitted shows that the ckkndant has not made a morl.!.!aµc payment durin!.! the past 70 months and continuing to date. /\ccordirn.dy. plainti IT has estahl ishcd its entitlement to j udgm1.:nt based upon thl' det\.:ndant · s con ti nui ng hreach or the part ics · agreement.

With n.:spcct to the mortgage lendcr·s capacity to prosecute this rorcclosure action. thl' plaintiff must also c.;stablish its standing as part or its prima lacic showing (Aurora ! .oan Serl'l.c<!s 1·.

'l'aylor. 25 NY3d 355. 12 NYS3d 612 (2015); /,oam·c11·e 1·. Firshing. 130 /\D3d 787. 14 NYS3d 410 (211

i1 Dept., 20 15 ): I JS/JC Hunk USA, NA. 1·. /Juptiste. 128 AD3d 77, I 0 N YS3d 255 (2'~1 Dept.. 2015)). In a lim!closurc act inn. a plaintiff has standing if it is either the holtkr or. or the assignee oi: the underlying note at the time that the action is commenced (Aurora loan Sc1TicJs '" Taylor.

rnpra.: 1-:111igrw11 lJa11k '" l .ari::.::.a, 129 AD3d 94. 13 NYS3d 129 (2"'1 Dept.,2015 }). Either a written assignment or lhc note or the physicul transfer or the note to the plain ti rr prior to commencement or the action is sunicicnt to lransli.!r the obligation and to provide standing ( IVel/s Fargo /Jank. NA. 1•.

l'urka. 125 /\D3d 848, 5 NYS3d 13·0 (2"J Dept., 2015); U.S. /Jank r. <iuy. 125 /\D3d 845. 5 NYS3d 116 (2"" Dept., 2015 )). /\ plainti rrs attachment of' a duly indorscd note to its complaint or to the certiJicatc of' merit rcquin.:d pursuant to CPLR JO I 2(b). coupled with an affidavit 111 which it alleges that it had possession of the note prior to the commencement of the action. has bc1.:n held lo constitute due proororthc plaintiffs standing to prosecute its claims for forec losure and sale (.IJ>i\/orgun Chose /Jank. N./1. 1•. ll'einherga. 142 /\D3d 6-B. 37 NYS3d 286 (2'"1 Dept., 2016): l· iVM,·1 1·. fokap111: I I. /11c .. 141 /\D3d 506. 35 1y 3d 236 (2"J Dept.. 20 I 6 ): 1Je111sche /Jank 11/alimwl h11sl Co. \'. J.eigh. 13 7 !\ DJd 841. 28 N YS3d 86 (2nJ Dept.. 2016 ): Nationstw· 1'/orlgag<!

U.C 1·. Cati::.on<!. 127 /\ 1)3d I 151. 9 lYS.3d 315 (2'w Dept.. 2015 )).

Plaintiff has proven that ii has standing It> maintain this action by submission or the al"li<Javi t from its \'ice president or loan documentation together \\'ith copies or the mergcr documents cstablishino that the oril!inal mort 0 a!.!.e kndcr mcr1.?.cd with and bl!camc known as Wells Farl2,o Bank. 0 - ::::- .... ._ ....

N ./\. Hascd upon the submission or this e\·idence. Wells Fargo established its standing to prosecute its <.:I aims as a result or ii .... (10'\<;es~ion or the promissory note at and prior tn the c.:ommenccmcnt or this action (see I /SIJ< ·/Jank l ·s.1. 1V. I. r . . ·lrmijo.\. 151 /\D}d 9-D. 20 J 7 WI . 2<>62557 (2"J Dept.. 2017): ('<'Jllrn/ \lorf.!!,ugc• Co. '" /)m·is. ]..J.9 f\1)3d 898. )} YS:"hJ 315 (2°J lkpl.. 2017); ll'ells Forgo Hank. N..-1. 1•. ( J.\tiguy. 127 t\D.3d 1175. 8 YS.3d ()69 (1"1 Dept.. 2015 ): f : .. ...,·. Bank. N..-1. '" ( 'ru::.. 1-+7 1\D3d 1101. 47 NYS'.'d 459 (2"'1 Dept.. 2017)). i\ny alkgcd issues su1Tou1H.li11g lhl· 11wr1g:1gl' a"signml'nt <lrl' irrc..:kvanl concern i11g thl' issut:: (lf standing sincl' thl' plaintilT has established S(~tnding by (1(\SSl'SSiOll Of' lhe prorniSSOI") note prior (0 <.:OITlll lellL:ClllL'll l ol' this adtOll

(/·'i\'\/.I i· fokt1/J11!:: II. lw .. 141 1\D3d50(i. 35 NYS:ld 236 (:2"'1 l)cpt.. 201(>}: /Je11tsclw Hunk \11li111111/ '/i'"'1 < 'o ,. I ei.t:h 117 1\lfld X·tl ::>X ' Y~'ld Xr) 1:1"" Dept. . '1f1] <ll\

\Vith respect to plaintirl"s service orprc-forcclosurl' tkfoull notice'\. a fair reading or the 1110rtgagL' agrl'cmcnl rcwals that. ·1ascd upon lhc.: t111disputc<l facts in thi:-. casl'. th<.:1<.: ,,·as mi

-3-

[* 3][* 3]

n.:quin.·1111.:nt umkr th<: IL'rms of'th<.: mortgage that the mortgage kmkr SL'n·c a notiLc ordcfoult as a condi I ion pr<.:ccdL'lll lo c:nmmcncing this action. Paragraph 1 I or l he promissory nnte docs not n.!quirl' :-<.:rvi<.:<.: or a letter of m:cekration based upon this ddi.!ntlant·s ck f~1uh in making timely monthly mongagc payments.

I IO\\'l'\ er. propn SL'JTicc of Rl>/\l'I. 130.+ notices on<; horrowcr 1s a statutorily mandated condition pn:cedenl to the commencemcnt of a foreclosurc action. and the plaintiff has the burtlen or L'stahlishing compliance with this contlition (;furora I.nan .\'enices. U.( · 1·. Jl'eish/11111. 85 /\D3d 95. <>n 1\ YS2d 609 <211

J Dept.. 2011 ): Firs! .\'a1io1111/ Bunk o(( 'hirn!!o r. Sifrer. 73 /\D3c.1 162. 899 NYS2d 2.S6 r~lh Dept.. '.2010)). RP/\PI. 1304(2) provides that notice be St:lll hy registered or ccnified mail and b~ lirst-class mai l to thc last knc)\\ n addn.:ss ol"lhc horrower(s). and il"<liffcrent. to

th <..! n.:s ic.krn.:e that is thc subject of the mortgage. The notice is considercd given a~ or the <lat<..! it is mailed and must be sent in a separate envelope from any other mailing or notice and the notice must he in 14-point Lypc.

With respect to scrvicc or the pre-foreclosure mortgage RP /\PL 1304 90-uay notices. <.:asc law di<.:tatcs the proof" required to prove strict compliance with the statute can he satis fied : I ) hy plaintiffs submission of an affidavit of service of the notices (see CiriMorfp,age. Inc. v. Pappas. 147 /\D3<l 900, 47 NYS3d-+ I 5 (2"J Dl.!pl.. 2017); Bank <d"Nell' York Ale/10111·. At1uino. 13 l /\D3d I 186, I(> NYS3d 770 (2°J Ocpl.. 2015): Deutsche /Jank National 'frust Co.'" .'-1}JC111os. 102 /\D3<.l 909, 961 NYS2d 200 (2'iJ Dept.. 20 13 )): or 2) hy plaintiffs submission of sunicient proof to establish ""proof or mailing by the post office .. (( 'itiJ\furlgage. Inc. I'. Pappas. Sllpl'U pg. C){)I: see Wells Fargo /Ju11k. N A. 1·. 'fr11pia. 150 /\D3d I 049. 55 YS3d 134 (2"'1 Dept., 2017)). Once either method is established a presumption of receipt arises (see I 'frione 1:·1 ie1111e J\ledical Cure. P. C. v. Co111111y-lt Me Insurance Co .. suprn.: Flatzslar Bank r. Mendo::a. 139 /\D3d 898, 32 YS3d 278 (2nJ Dept., 2016 ): Re.,·ide111iol !folding ('mp. 1·. Scofl.wla/C! ln.rnrwu:e Co .. 286 /\ D2tl 679. 729 NYS2d 766 (2'"1 Dept.. 2001)).

While the business records exception lo the hearsay rule provides a mechanism to establish the foundation fo r th<.: prnur n<.:ccssary to prove compl iance. rc<.:cnt appdlate rulings have required that thc affola\'il submitted hy the mortgagc kndn"s repn.:sl.!ntativc set forth his/her personal l~1miliarity with the mailing practices and procedures or the business entity rcsponsihlc for doing the actual mailing (( 'iti ,\/ortguge. Inc. 1·. l'a11/J<ts. Sll/Jl'O..' ll'C!lfs Forgo Hunk. N.11 1·. 'li-1111iu. supra.: /1m.'slor.\ S<11•i11gs !Ju11A. 1·. Salus. 152 /\D3d 7 52. 2017 W L 3 I (i I 068 (2'"1 Dept., 201 7 ): ./ P ,\lorgu11

Chase /Junk ' " f\ulc/J. 1-1-1 /\ f) Jd 5><>. ](> N YSJd 23 S ( '.2"'1 Dept.. 10 J 6) ). In th is case. there is insul'licicnt c\'idencc lo pmve that mailing hy cert ified and first class ma il was clnrc by the post o nice, si nee plai mi IT has foiled to submit either an affic..lavi t or ser\'ice hy mailing or to submit <111

anidavit from a rcprcscntative personally familiar " ·ith the mailing practices w .. cd hy Wells Fargo. or hl submit suflkicnt do<:umcntar:i C\ iden<.:c or proof" of mailing by and through the 11os1 ofli<:c. 111 this case. the only proof of mailing besides the arrida,·it submitted by the bank reprcscntati\'<.' . \\as a copy 1'1" ihl· 110-J notice and 1wo documents lilied ··ccriificd M.1il Receipt"· containing lkddl"s naml' and addrL·ss ''ith a notation of the date sent ( 1/25/12) and t\\·o .. cu·tilil'd mail numbL·rs'". Th~sc t!ornmcnts arc insuffo.:il'n1 to establish strict compliance 11t'ccrlili1:d and first class mailing o!"th1: r;(!llirnl 1101in:s Bll"L'd 111nn tltc~L' cin·111n.,t:11Ki.'"· plaintiff has 1;1ikd to dvinnn.,tr;1tc ·1., L'lltitknwnt In Sllll1111;tr~ jud!!lllCllt -;olcl) with rcspl'Ct 10 the issue n!" compliall<:C \\it Ji lite rcqui ,.1.'.1111.'.llts or RP!\ PI. 130-l ( Ci1 ihuJtA. 1\'. f. 1· Wood. 1 50 !\ lHd 81.1. 2017 WI. 190321 8 (2'k1 Dept.. 2017 ): .\I<~ I Hunk 1· .lo.,·e11h. 15:'. 1\D~d '>79. 2017 WL 29(>1421 (2'1·

1 Dcp1. 20 17)).

-4-

[* 4][* 4]

With rcs1x:ct to delcndant ·s n.:maining contentions. dcf'crn.lant°s application !'or <liscovcry is 111001 except with n:spcct to the sok remaining issue of plaintiff :s compliance wit11 RPJ\Pl. 1.104 rcquiri.::ments. which wi 11 be the subject or tht.: con fen:nce sche<lu led on October 1 ll. 2017. Dekndant 's claim that the complaint must Ix: dismissed since Wells hlrgo is nn lnngcr the real party in interest is denied. since C'PLR I 018 provides f'or continuation of the prosecution of this action by the original puny plaintilTpcnding future substit11tio11. Dcfcndanrs request for a computation hl'aring is denied as premature as no referee has yet been appo inted. Finally. as the delcndant has foikd to address any remaining aJTirmutiYc deJCnses asserted in his answer in opposition to plaintilf s cross motil)l1 . those remaining aninnalive defenses must he deemed abandoned and arc hen.:hy di-;rnissed (( 'ifi/wnk. NA. 1·. /'an Hmnl Propt!rlif!s. /,/,( '. 95 Al)Jd 1158, 9-1-5 NYS2d :no 0"'1

Dept. . 2012): Wells Fargo Bunk Minnesota. NA. 1·. Pc!te~. 41 J\D3d 590. 837 NY'>2J 877 (2"'1 Dcrt.. 2007) }.

J\ccordingly. lhe defendant"s molions seeking dismissal nr plainti !rs complaint rm: denied. PlaintilT"s motion seeking summary judgment is gnmted solely to the extent indicatcu hcreinabove. /\ conterence shall be held for the purpose of either scheduling a limited issue triul pursuant to CPLR 321 :?.(g). or a briefing schedule for submission of another summary judgment motion.

Dated: September 20. 20 17 HON. HOW A MD H. II ECKMAN, JR .. J.S.C.

-5-

[* 5][* 5]