IN NEW YORK SUPREME COURTCOUNW OF MONROE STATE OF NEW YORK

LS FARGO BANK N.A., plaintif

4/-19t09

KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, defendant in error

NOTICE OF DEMAND TO VACATE

BE ADVISED that on the annexed affidavit w/exhibits, another demand has been made onsupreme court; [John Ark] to confront and verify the numerous fatal defects in the aboveproceedings that deprived the court of subject matter, to vacate all of it's judgments with

, to punish the tortfeasors and award costs and damages to pro se defendant fromto defend protracted foreclosure fraud

is retumab Lonfu . Answers, if any, are due on or beforeprovided to defendant at the address below.

I hereby depose that onU.s Mailto the following i"xv @rrri4 ofOK.-MztDtu '

Richard S. MullinWoods, Oviatt Gilman LLP

700 Crossroads Building 2 State StreetRochester, New York 14614

I hereby depose that everything alleged herein is true and complete to the best of myknowledge except for matters alleged on information and belief, and I believe thosematters to be true.

i/ilW,:4T,f,l rth{,f KEVIN PATRICK508 Locust LaEast Rochester NY 1444llNDlrU OEJOHNNo 01DE4965323

ilotary Public St3te o'1 Ncw YoftQualifiic ir, Mcnroc Cornty

. , i'1v CLr.':i":.ri q x;,'t l t)5/07//-b.t 9a H htt-,,Srrer/f----

12345678I

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

l, Kevin Patrick Brady, depose the following;

On or about May 9, 20141 received an order signed by this court on April 23,2014granting an ex-parte motion of Richard Mullen for Wells Fargo Bank IWFBI ostensibly tocomply with new heightened rules for foreclosures. I note that Mullen has successfullymoved this court to, inter alia, omit from the record, nunc pro tunc,, the ONLY words thatduped the action with a color of capacity in the first place..

BE ADVISED that said order is VOID for misrepresentation and misapplication ofstatute, for granting relief knowingly in excess of judicial authority and for perpetuatingan injurious and protracted fraud on your deponent by this court.

As a matter of record I have deposed essentially ad nauseum, that this action has beenjurisdictionally VOID from the outset and yet I continue to be patronized and ignored. Isubmit that no 'post judgmenl sleigh of hand' 'remediation' can cure said fatal defects.

I am shocked but not surprised to learn I was not made aware of Mullins motion. I havelived at the said last known address since May 1994, but did not receive the Noticeattested by Katrina Kramarchy, Had it had been mailed as asserted, it would havearrived here in the usualway.

Be also advised that I am sufficiently informed on the schemes by which contemporaryTBTF institutions are cheating the public. Th6y are not limited to payment advances.Had I known these were to be'validated' in my absence from court lwould.certainlyhave made my appearance and objections known.

Having now retrieved Mullins moving affidavits from county clerk files I am up to speedon this continuing fraud.. I find Parag. 10 very interesting.

'Plaintiff cannot confirm the proper execution but has verified that the amounts andthe claims are accurate. I ln other words, 'we don't know HOW we got this job but, trustus, we're doing it with peffectionl.

He has also moved, successfully, in my absence, on hearsay alone, to substituteaffidavits submitted either March 7, andlor March 11,2014, back to the procedurallyprohibited summary judgment when this court declared 'no one heard in opposition'.

I trust this court will hear me now.

)-

12345678I

10111213141516171819202122232425262728?9303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

TAKE NOTE.

**'the purpose of the 2007 amendment to CPLR 200f was to allow coutts to corrector disregard technical defeds occurring at the commencement of an action that donot prejudice the opposing party (New York Senate lntroducer's Memorandum inSupport, at 3). The Legistature considered the amendment to be necessaty'to fullyforeclose dismissat of actions for technical, non-prejudicial defects' Ruffin v. LionCorp., &C., et al, 940 N.E.2d 909, 15 N.Y.3d 578,915 N.Y.S.2d 204 (N.Y. 1113012010')

'The measure affords the court discretion to correct "a mistake in the method offrligg, as opposed to a mistake in what is filed" Grskovic v Holmes, 2013-06545 (N.Y.1At09t2013)

At issue here is not a technicality AND, most certainly not a scriveners error. 1 Thepurpose of the newly heightened rules was to protect the homeowner from corporatemarauding NOT to forgive and provide remedy to pretender lenders for lyino to invokejurisdiction and/or'steamrolling' onto unjust enrichment.

As to S S 2001 and 5019,*** courts look to purposes of the statutory requirementsand whether ltheyl have been substantially satisfied to determine the jurisdictionalissue 2 but they may not exercise discretion to cure defects (CPLR 2001) unlessiurisdiction is actually acquire_d over a defendant. Travis v New York Dept. of Envtl.Conseruation. 3 185 AD2d , a1715,

I submit that is precisely what this court has done. NOTHING has changed here. ln fact,this action is demonstrably even more fraudulent.

TO AVOID THE FMUD

Pro se defendant is still waiting for this court to resolve the preeminent, non waivablejurisdic'tionalchallenge raised in my responding papers. Although made in April 2009 Ihad to wait until June 2013 for the court to feign '[tlhe issue of standing was of necessitydecided against defendanf .

1 Where propert rights are affected scrivener errors must be approved by the victim.2 249 NY, at 134-139,

-3-

12345678I

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

To this day I have no idea what that means or why this court turned a valid challenge toboth'capacity'and'standing'into a procedurally prohibited accelerated termination dueto a'limited notice of appearance' allegedly necessitating a decision against defendantwith no opposition being heard .

The issues raised again by Order to Show Cause in April 2013, and on prima facieevidence, have never been answered. And yet issues raised under CPLR 5015 [4]survive even atleged final orders.Since this court continues its avoidance I ask theyoung counsel what he found in his review.

Are the following 'irregularities'those sought to be 'validated'?

"Were the signatures of 'Talin Gheyvandian and Mary Jo McGowan, as V.P's onthe challenged transfer documents truthfully made in said capacities?

"Do these documents establish an unbroken chain of assignment of BOTH noteand mortgage from the originator to Wells Fargo Bank ?

OR is this the reason for the sudden appearance of another fabricated document[allonge] into in Monroe County clerk files ?. .

I find no other affidavits submitted except his own. Considering the now widely knownforeclosure scandal, I suspect that NO current employee of WFB or WFHM would daresign their name to anything alleged by these institutions. Thus, if Mr. Mullen does not yelknow what'irregularities' he asserts have now been Tixed', his affidavit in compliance ismeaningless.

And yet he has successfully moved this court, on more hearsay, to willfully exceed itsauthority; by judicially validating fatal, non waivable jurisdictional defects retroactive to2009; and admit unsubstantiated evidence or condone tampering with the record bysneaking a fabricated allonge into county clerk files.

He has successfully moved this court to'validate'fataljurisdictional infirmities to allowWFB to seize my property and move on from this controversy ? Given that Mullin isunder mandate of ABA Rule 1.6, how can he be expected to report anything else ?

Contrary to his ex parte 'reassurances'all is not Hunky Dory here.

T

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233u35363738394041424344454647484950

Let us review these validations from pro se defendants point of view, nunc pro tunc, tothe Original Complaint. of March 2009.

Attorney Brad Davidzik alleges at'FIRST' that WFB is " the owner and holder of a noteand mortgage being foreclosed'. At'THIRD he alleges'the mortgage was subsequentlyassigned to Bank United but makes no reference to the Note.

Even after these statements were specifically challenged, alleged VP John HermanKennerty deposed ONLY 'the existene of the Note and moftgage being foreclosed..Colleague Banett Hemdon deposes ONLY having reviewed them.

Multiple New York appellate decisions have held "[tlo establish a prima facie case in anaction to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff must establish the existence of the mortgageand the mortgage note, ournership of the mortgage, and the defendanfs default in payment[Household Finance Realty Corp. of NY v Wynn, 19 AD3d 5y'5l2d Dept 2005]; Sears Mortgagev Yahhobi, 19 AD3d 40212d Dept 20051; Ocrren Federal Bank FSB v Miller, 18 AD3d 527 I2dDept 20051; U.S. Bank Trust Nat. Ass'n v Butti, 16 AD3d 4A8Pd Dept 20051; First UnionMortgage Corp. v Fern, 298 AD2d 49012d Dept 20021; Village Bank v Wild Oaks Holding, lnc.,196 AD2d 81212d Dept 19931).

The rule in New York is " a plaintiff lacks standing where there is no proof that BOTHthe mortgage and note have been assigned to plaintiff. HSBC Bank USA v Miller 26Misc 3d 407 [NY Sup Ct. Sullivan County 2009) "Proof of moftgage assignment aloneis NOT sufficient to constitute standing in a foreclosure suit.'

My ad nauseumpleadings include 'lt is not possible for Refereq Stephen M. Kelley, tocompute 2n amount due to Plaintiff upon the bond/note and mortgage set forth inthe complainf because the bond/note and mortgage has

Despite clearly enunciated jurisdictional challenges not only to plaintiffs 'standing to sue;which was not subject to waiver rule, but to'capacity to sue' as acknowledged in theaffidavit John Herman Kennerty parag 14....

........the only response ever given by this court is 'the issue of standing was of necessidecided against defendant and constitutes the law of this case.

-5-

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

This is not acceptable. The allegations I deposed by affidavit to Show Cause lApril 2013have been consistently ignored. Contrary to the opinion of Judge John Ark, supremecourt DOES have certain long established limitations on it's subject matter which arebeyond the authority of its judges and/or favored litigants to 'fix' nunc pro dunc..

Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota v. Mastropaolo, No.2006-00417 (0512912007't atl27l

'Jurisdiction is a word of elastic, diverse, and disparate meanings. A statement thata court lacks Jurisdiction' to decide a case may, in reality, mean that elements of acause of action are absent. Similarly, questions of mootness and standing of partiesmay be characterized as raising questions of subject matter jurisdiction. But theseare not the kinds of judicial infirmities to which.CPLR 5015 (subd [a]. par 4) isaddressed. That provision is designed to preserve objections so fundamentalto thepower of adjudication of a court that they survive even a finaljudgment or order.

In Thrasher v United States Liab, Ins. Co. (19 NY2d '1,59,'1.66), the courf in discussingsubject matter jurisdiction, drew clear distinction between a couft's competence toenteftain an action and its power to render a judgment on the merits. Absence of

absence of power to reach the merjts does not" (Lacks v Lacks, ar74-75)

And so, out of necessity, I ask again. What was the necessity for deciding against thispro se defendant and mv preeminent right to be heard. to defend my property andto be provided equal.protection under the law?

ln the final analysis, Wells Fargo Bank was not the owner of either note or mortgage atthe time of commencement, AND Wells Fargo Home Mortgage was ONLY the alleged'Servicer'for the Ponzi of income streams.

The real agenda of Mullins motion is the'smoking gun' here. The words 'Plaintiff is anational association duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws ofthe United States of America are not incriminating in any way.

The word[s] intended to be surreptitiously omitted from the record, nunc pro tunc is not'banking', either. They are 'and the owner and holder of a note and mortgage beingforeclosed'.

A

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

I submit that it doesn't take a brilliant law school graduate to figure this out.

Despite New York's heightened rule, nothing has changed. Mullins affidavit remains adefinitive example of 'HOLODECK LAW-...where nothing is as it appears.....and wherelitigants are never to be seen again....with MONEY..

Contrary to Mullens cryptic message every victim of 'Dual Tracking'and other'dirtyby pretender lenders is infinitely prejudiced by financial Ponzi schemes whether theyknow it, or admit it or not.

I allege with 100% conviction that Justice John J. Ark, and attomeys for Steven BaumAssocs. Brad Davidzik, Charles D.J. Case and Douglas Weinert, and RochesterJohn Belluscio I who appeared on WFB's behalf without any known authority] and nowRicfrard S. Mullen, Esq have knowingly exploited 'systemic structuralfailings in theforeclosure process to defraud me of my home and property,

I DEMAND this court to purge it's every judgment and order the ' plaintiff 'to purgepaper from the clerks office and from all credit reporting agencies.

I DEMAND to be awarded costs, punitive and compensatory damages as will becomputed and submitted to this court on or before June 15,2014.

I DEMAND that the above tortfeasors be punished under 22 NYCRR 130.1 and everyother relief I am entitled to for this protracted malicious prosecution.

My order is attached.

I hereby depose that everything alleged herein is true and complete to the best of myexcept for matters alleged on information and belief, and I believe those matters to be true.

KEVIN PATRICK BRADY508 Locust Lane

-7-

East Rochester NY 1

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

IN NEW YORK SUPREME COURTCOUNW OF MONROE

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., plaintif

V

STATE OF NEW YORK

M19t09

KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, defendant in error

PROPOSED ORDER

Now upon motion of pro se defendant for this court to observe and confirm another in aseries of frauds on the court by Wells Fargo Bank and it's attorneys this court confirms thefollowing.

ln March 2009, Wells Fargo Bank N.A filed an action to foreclose on Bradys home andproperty knowing it did not, and could not, meet the statutory prerequisites to invoke subjectmatter jurisdiction on this court.

In his responding papers Brady challenged WFB's capacity to sue and standing to sue andasserted that each must be pleaded and proven for the action to proceed. He asserted thealleged assignee's burden to show proof of assignment or evidence of consideration paidand delivery of same.

ln sur reply, the Banks servicer; Wells Fargo Home Mortgage continued the subterfuge andduped the couft into summarily dismissing the pro se defendants answer as a mere 'limitednotie of apanrrei This court signed an order of foreclosure and sale of defendantshome and property on December 17,2009.

ln April 2013 Brady sought an Order to Show Cause citing CPLR 5015 [a] 2,3,4 that thepurported transfers to WFB were riddled with fraud and thus vitiated this courts already fataljurisdiction. Upon only a superficial inquiry for the merits, the court denied and dismissedthe OTC. The court wrote feign '[tJhe issue of standing flurisdiction] was of neessitydecided against defendant .

12345678I

1011't213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243M454647484950

Now, pursuant to Motion of Richard S. Mullen made under color of compliance with Rules ofthe Court, the court confirms the action to have proceeded entirely on Plaintiffs fraud andsophistry.

The motion sought, inter alia, to omit from the record, nunc pro tunc, the perjured statementthat duped the court into wrongfully invoking subject matter jurisdiction, ordering defendantshome and property to be sold and creating liability for WFB are; 'and the owner and holderof a note and mortgage being foreclosed'

ln the absence of those words the entire proceedings are declared VOID AB lNlTlO.

It is ORDERED that Wells Fargo Bank N.A. is to purge every judgment and every paperfiled under the above title from Monroe County files AND to purge every report it hasfiled with any credit reporting agency.

Defendant, Brady, is awarded costs, punitive and compensatory damages against WellsFargo Bank N.A. to be computed and submifted to this court on or about June 30,2014AND every other relief this court is authorized to provide.

Every attorney hereafter named and registered to practice law in New York as of theundersigned are declared in violation of 22 NYCRR 130.1 .1 and shall be sanctionedaccordingly.

John J. Ark, attorneys for defunct Steven Baum Assocs., now or then Brad Davidzik,Charles D.J. Case and Douglas Weinert, and Rochester attorney John Belluscio I whoappeared on WFB's behalf without any known authorityl AND Richard S. Mullen, Esq.All have knowingly exploited 'systemic structural failings in the foreclosure process todefraud me of my home and property,

It iS ORDERED

Date Judge, New York Supreme Court

?

' !rs\ t rGUF-i i r.-.ffi ru $i ,, r\ fft{, Yg., a Special part orthe supreme courrv';y lW &*' tJ held in the County of Monroe, at the Hall

?ilt| Tpp c, _ of Justice, thereof, CifV of Rocheste-r,

'RESENT: HoN. J.HN r. ef{fi,i, u"rl}*,?

"ppw York on the}!4v or@41;-'20/y:

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT ,, I LLERft

dil;;ffi;ffii,il; --- --------xPlaintifi

vs.

KEVIN PATRICK BRADY,

ORDER

INDEX NO.: 4419109

Defendant(s).-------------- x

Upon the reading of the Notice of Motion dated the 19th day of March, 2014, byPlaintiffs counsel, Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP, by fuchard S. Mullen, Esq., seeking an Orderpursuant to CPLR 5019(a) and 2001, substituting an Affidavit of Merit and AmountDue, nuncpro tunc, in place of the original affidavit attached to the application for an Order of Referenceand ratifying and validating the Order of Reference and Judgment of Foreclosure and Salepreviously granted by this Court, together with such other and further relief as this Court maydeem just, equitable and proper.

AND, upon the Affrrmation of Richard S. Mullen, Esq., dated the 19th day of March,2014, set forth the basis for the relief requested herein, it is hereby

ORDERED, that pursuant to the CPLR 2001 and 5019(a), the Affrdavit of Merit andAmount Due executed by Kimberly Ann Mueggenberg of WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. datedMarch 7,2014 shall be substituted, nunc pro tunc,in place of the Affidavit executed by HermanJohn Kennerty of WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. dated June 12, 2009 attached to the initialapplication for an Order Granting Summary Judgment and that the Order Granting SummaryJudgment granted on December 17,2009 is hereby ratified and validated in all respects; and it isfurther

ORDERED, that pursuant to the CPLR 2001 and 5019(a), the Affrdavit of Merit andAmount Due executed by Kimberly Ann Mueggenberg of WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. datedMarch 11, 2014 shall be substituted, nunc pro tunc, in place of the Affidavit executed by Barrett

12La6684:l woc #916 p

Hemdon of WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. dated April 29, 2009 attached to the initialapplication for a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale and that the Judgment of Foreclosure andSale granted on August 12,2010 is hereby ratified and validated in all respects; and it is further

ORDERED, that pursuant to CPLR 2001 and 5019(a), the Judgment of Foreclosure andSale granted on August 12, 2010 is hereby ratified and validated in all respects and, upon saidvalidation, PlaintitPs counsel is directed to file the Affirmation required by the Office of CourtAdministration's Memorandum dated October 20,2010, as supplemented, five (5) days beforethe scheduled auction.

ORDERED, that paragraph FIRST of the complaint be amended, nunc pro tunc, to readthat "Plaintiff is a national association duly orgaqized and existing under and by virtue the lawsof the United States of America."

DArED: ,@a rl, h(?

ENTERED:

({2I4668a: I woc #916

STATE OF NEW YORKSUPREME COURT: COUNTY OF MONROE

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

PlaintiflAFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

INDEX NO.: 4419109vs.

KEVIN PATRICK BRADY,

Defendants.

STATE OF NEW YORK)MONROE COUNTY )SS.:

I, McKenzie L. Bonadonna, being duly sworn, deposes and says: Deponent is not apartyto this action,

"is over 18 years of age, and resides in Rochester, New York. On_i

^S-!CI[|, deponent served a NoTICE oF ENTRY of Order upon:

Kevin Patrick Brady508 Locust LaneEast Rochester, NY 14445

By depositing a true copy, in a postpaid properly addressed envelope, in a post office box underthe exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal Service at Rochester, New York.

Sworn to before-l dav of ,2014.

-:fr[ii.$ril*?,*fi;:,,

me this

12217777: ) /2

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.Plaintiff,

VS.

KEVTN PATRICK BRADY,

Defendant(s).

AFFIRMATIONINDEX NO.: 4419109

MORTGAGED PREMISES:508 LOCUST LANEEAST ROCHESTER, NY14445

l:ftfr'C-1-:

tsJ

r\]1-I-i

r;ft-" --tra:_*s

N.B.: During and after Augast 2010, numerous and widespread insufliciencies inforeclosar&ngs-i" nffiooscourts around the nation were reported by major mortgage lenders and other authorities, ir*fhdinglailure toreview documents andftles to esiablish sianding ana oihir foreclosure requisites; filing of notfqizeffbffiavitswhichfalsety attest to such review and to other criticalfacts in theforeclosure processl and "rot'osignature" ofdocuments.

JJ&

Richard S. Mullen, Esq., pursuant to CPLR 2106, and under the penalties of perjury, affirms as follows:

1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice in the state of New York and am affiliated withthe Woods Oviatt Gilman, LLP, the attorneys of record for Plaintiff in the above-captionedmortgage foreclosure action. As such, I am fully aware of the underlying action, as well as theproceedings had herein.

2. On March 7,2014 and March 11,2014 I communicated with the following representative orrepresentatives of the Plaintift who informed me that she (a) personally reviewed Plaintiffsdocuments and records relating to this case for factual accuracy; and (b) confirmed the factualaccuracy of the allegations set forth in the Complaint and any supporting affidavits oraffirmations filed with the Court, as well as the accuracy of the notarizations contained in thesupporting documents filed therewith.

NameKimberyly Ann Mueggenberg

TitleVice President of Loan Dd:umentation

:' ;._=f'j -t-t

3. Based upon my communication with person . specified in paragraph 2, ?ly ,,i.3,b:"quent -communications thereafter, as well as upon my own inspection and other reas-onabl inquiry,:=under the circumstances, I affirm that, to the best of my knowledge, informatiot andJelief, the.,-e.;Summons, Complaint, and other papers filed or submitted to the Couft in this ry4tten-eontain no:-;

ala

{2146741: I

false statements of fact or law.

/3

Notwithstanding the above, based on communications with my client, as well as-rilyrFi/n reviewof this matter, the following qualifications are hereby brought to the Court's attention:

In my review of the pleadings submitted in this action, this firm was notified by its client thatthere may have been irregularities with regard to the Affidavit in Support of Summary Judgrnentand the Affidavit of Merit and Amount Due previously submitted to Court with Plaintiffs Motionfor an Order of Reference. As such, the Plaintiff, through its pending motion, respectfullyrequests the Court to substitute the Affidavits annexed to Plaintiffs pending motion in the placeof the Affidavit in Support of Summary Judgment and Affidavit of Merit previously submitted inthis action. It is respectfully submitted that the Plaintiff has verified that the amounts and claimsset forth in said Affrdavits are true and accurate.

In my review of the pleadings submitted in this action, I noted that paragraph *FIRST" of theComplaint incorrectly references the State of Incorporation of the Plaintiff. For clarification,Plaintiff is a national association duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws ofthe United States of America. It is respectfully submitted that no prejudice has come to any partyand this error is of the kind contemplated by CPLR 2001.

I understand my continuing obligation to amend this Affirmation in light of newly discoveredmaterial facts following its filing.

I am aware of my obligations under New York Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR Part1200) and 22 NYCRR Part 130.

4.

5.

r\|i

DArED: flk,J^ lq , rctq

N.B.: Counsel may augment this afJirmation to provide explanatory details, and mayfile supplementalaffirmations or affidavits for the same purpose.

Qv674| |

4

=COUNTY OF MONROE

F::&D

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.Plaintiff,

VS.

--- x

AFFIRMATION

INDEX NO.: 4419109

KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, E i,;!q !:*Defendant(s). '4:2 =

-.,----------------x ;= x fi--i

Richard S. Mullen, Esq., pursuant to CPLR 2106, and under the penaltieEpf p:.j"$affirms as follows: z.: ;

::=i,1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of New York an@ as0rociatd,

with Woods Oviatt Gilman, LLP, the attorneys for the Plaintiff in the abofttefepncedforeclosure action. As such, I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstar#es 8T thiscase and the proceedings heretofore.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is a foreclosure action regarding the mortgaged property located at 508 LOCUSTLANE, EAST ROCHESTER, NY 14445 (the "Premises").

On March 3I, 2009, the Summons and Complaint were filed in the Monroe CountyClerk's Offrce. A copy of the Summons and Complaint are annexed as Exhibit "A".

On December 17, 2009, an Order Grating Summary Judgment was granted. A copy ofthe Order is annexed as Exhibit "B."

In support of the Order Granting Summary Judgment, an Affidavit dated lwre 12,2009was executed on behalf of Plaintiff setting forth the basis of Plaintiff s claims and theamounts due and owing by DefendanVMortgagor(s). A copy of said Affidavit is annexedas Exhibit "C."

6. In support of the motion for Summary Judgment and Order of Reference, an Affidavit ofMerit and Amount Due dated Apil 29,2009 was executed on behalf of Plaintiff settingforth the basis of PlaintifPs claims and the amounts due and owing byDefendant/Mortgagor(s). A copy of said Affidavit of Merit and Amount Due is annexedas Exhibit "D."

7. On August 12, 2010, Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale was granted.Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale is annexed as Exhibit "E."

2.

4.

5.

:t={sri\A

"oFY o.Sh"

-c-: \${\\- "it

,\"' \_>,' '. woc #916+8'

lttA'fti

o.,{

12r4668a:l

--

il i" ,,rppoa oi ttt. j.rAgent oi Foreclosure and Sale, the previously referenced Affidavitof Merit and Amount Due dated Aprll 29,2009 was executed on behalf of Plaintiffsetting forth the basis of Plaintiffs claims and the amounts due and owing byDefendant/Mortgagor(s). A copy of said Affidavit of Merit and Amount Due is annexedas Exhibit "D."

9. Thereafter, in preparing for the foreclosure saie of the Premises, this firm attempted tocomply with the Offrce of Court Administration's Memorandum dated October 20,2010,as supplemented. Said Memorandum requires Plaintiff s counsel to communicate with arepresentative of Plaintiff and confirm "the factual accuracy of the allegation set forth inthe Complaint and any supporting affrdavits or affrrmations filed with the court, as wellas the accuracy of the notarizations contained in the supporting documents filedtherewith." See, Office of Court Administration's memorandum dated October 20,2010,as supplemented, at paragraph 2. This firm was notified by its client that they cannotconfirm the accuracy with regard to the execution and/or notarization with regard to theexecution of the Affrdavit of Merit and Amount Due as referred to in paragraph 5 aboveand, therefore, the certification cannot be provided.

10. It is respectfully submitted that, while the Plaintiff cannot confirm the proper executionand/or notarizations of said Affrdavit, Plaintiff has verified that the amounts and theclaims set forth therein are true and accurate. In fact, the information contained in theAffidavit of Merit and Amount Due mirrors that which is set forth in the complaints.Compare: Exhibits "A" and "C".

1 1. Plaintiff now brings the instant motion requesting the Court to accept and substitut e, nttncpro tunc, an Affidavit dated March 7,2014 in the stead and place of the Affrdavit inSupport of Summary Judgment previously submitted.

12. Plaintiff now brings the instant motion requesting the Court to accept and substitvte, nuncpro tunc, an Affidavit of Merit and Amount Due dated March II,2014 in the stead andplace of the Affidavit of Merit and Amount Due previously submitted.

13. As the underlying facts and the amounts stated in the Affidavit in Support of SummaryJudgment are correct, the Order Granting Summary Judgment and an Order of Reference,as well as the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale, should be ratified as the possibleinegularities with regard to the notaization of said Affidavit do not prejudice asubstantial right of any parry. The Affidavit in Support of Summary Judgment annexedhereto as Exhibit "F " should be substituted, nunc pro tunc, in the original's place. See,CPLR $2001 and 95019(a).

14. As the underlying facts and the amounts stated in the Affidavit of Merit and Amount Dueare correct, the Order Granting Summary Judgment and an Order of Reference, as well asthe Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale, should be ratified as the possible irregularitieswith regard to the notarization of said Affidavit do not prejudice a substantial right of anyparty. The Affrdavit of Merit and Amount Due annexed hereto as Exhibit "G " shouldbe substituted, nunc pro tunc, in the original's piace. See, CPLR $2001 and $5019(a).

{214668a:l woc #915

/bI Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C d.,,..

15. CPLR $ 2001 provides that:

[a]t any stage of an action, the Court may perrnit a mistake, omission, defect orirregularity to be corrected, upon such terms as may be just, or, if a substanti'al right of aparry is not prejudiced, the mistake, omission, defect or irregularity shall be disregarded.

Additionally, CPLR $ 5019(a) provides that:

A judgment or order shall not be stayed, impaired or affected by any mistake, defect orinegularity in the papers or procedures in the action not affecting a substantial right of aparty.

16. CPLR $ 5019 permits the Court to correct or cure ministerial mistakes, defects orirregularities which do not affect substantial rights of the parties. See, Hagerty v. Marketbasket Enterprises, Inc.,8 A.D. 3d 618,779 N.Y.S. 2d562 (2nd Dept. 2004). See also,Herpe v. Herpe,225 N.Y. 323,122 N.E. 204 (19i9). CPLR $ 5019 is not designed topermit the Court to exercise discretion or make new findings of fact. Siegel, New YorkPractice 4th $420. It is respectfully submitted that no substantial right of the Defendantswill be affected by the Court's acceptance of and reliance on the new Affidavit of Meritand Amount Due, attached hereto as Exhibit "E", as rib new material fact is set forth inthe Affidavit. Said Affidavit is submitted to alleviate any concerns and ensure that theCourt and all parties can rely without hesitation on Plaintiff s Affidavit of Merit andAmount Due.

IT.That plaintiff as ascertained that paragraph FIRST of the complaint is incorrect due to ascrivener's error. That said paragraph should read "Plaintiff is a national association dulyorganized and existing under and by virtue the laws of the United States of America."Therefore, plaintiff respectfuily requests that the complaint be amended to include thislanguage. Said error is a mere inegularity and does not prejudice the rights of any partyherein.

18. There is no prejudice to any party with regard to the requested relief. There is no disputethat the information set forth in the Affidavits is correct.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the instant applicatio#be$antedin its entirety, together with such other and further relief as this Court mafrdefr just;equitable, and proper. Fi ::

F i\)Dated: il(^rJ, /4 ,roro r, E-fio.h.rt"r, N.* yot-' :: T

Irrrfel

r'; et*. r\t

{2746684: }

I t*Exhibit A Exhibit C

ard S. Mullen, Esq.

woc #916

STATE OF NEW YORKSUPREME COURT: COLINTY OF MONROE

_-__:._------XWELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.3476 Stateview BoulevardFt. Mill, sc297t5

Plaintiff,

vs.

KEVIN PATRICK BRADY,

JOHN DOE (Said name being fictitious,it being the intention ofplaintifftodesigrrate any and all occupants ofpremises being foreclosed herein, andany parties, corporations or entities,if any, having or claiming an interestor lien upon the mortgaged premises.)

DATED: March 30,2009SBL No.: 151.27-t-39

Pursuant to federal law, this office is a debt collector.information obtained will be used for that purpose.

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OFACTION

ORIGINAL FIL,ED WITH THECLERK oN,4lg,i Int --INDEX No.: rl4t qlOqMORTGAGED PREMISES:508 LOCUST LANEEAST ROCHESTER, NY 14445

SBL#:151.27-t-39

^ n a**#i;;;;;-beencommencedandisnowpendinginthe supremeCourt of MoNRoE county upon the Complaint of the above n*"a plaintiff agalnritrrJ"to.r" namedDefendant(s) for the foreclosure of a mortgage bearing date the ioit auv of May, 1994 executed by KEVINPATRICK BRADY to secure the sum or $16,g00.00, ind recorded {L_iger 12219 of Mofigages at page 53 gNumber cL004929 in the office of the clerkof the 6ounty orrvrownoE, on the lTth day of May, 1994; whichmortgage was duly assigred by assignrnent a{gajtre l3th iay of July, 196g, and r. "ora"i on the 6th day ofoctober, 1998, in the office of the Clerk of MoNRoE co.;y; illi er t257,p"g" gg;;hich mortgage wasfurther assigrred by assignment dated the t 8th day orranuary, zooi, *a recordeJon tn" gtt day of Febnrary,2007, in the office of the crerk of MoNRoE county

"t Li#l!;i, page 136; - l

AND' N0TICE IS FURTITER GrvEN, that.the mortgaged premises dlscribed in such mortgage(s)affected by the said foreclosure action, wer', at the time of th; ;dencement of this action, and at the time ofthe filing of this Notice, situated in the county of MoNRoE and state of New yorlg and are described in"schedule A - Legal Description" attached. hereto and made a part hereof.

The clerk of the county of MoNRoE, is directed to index this Notice against the names of all theDefendant(s).

By:BradiStevenAttorneys for Plaintiff220 Northpointe parkway Suite GAmhersl NY 14228TeLlT[G2O4-2400

We are attempting to collect a debt and any

cMtr,rAL G^(plfuilf

STATE OF NEW YORKSUPREME COLIRT: COUNTY OF MONROE

-------------xWELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.3476 Stateview BoulevardFt. Mill, sc 29715

Plaintiff,

vs.

COMPLAINT

INDEXNo.: {tt nlOQKEVIN PATRICK BRADY, MORTGAGED PREMISES:

508 LOCUST LANEJOHN DoE (said name being fictitious, EAST ROCHESTE& Ny 14445it being the intention of Plaintiff todesignate any and all occupants of SBL#:premises being foreclosed herein, and l5l.Z7-l-3gany parties, corporations or entities,if any, having or claiming an interestor lien upon the mortgaged premises.)

?:3:19 ...._.x

The Plaintiff by its attorneys, Steven J. Baurn, P.C., for its complaint against the Defendant(s) allegesupon information and belief as follows:

FIRST: Plaintiffis a national banking association duly organized and existing under and by virtue of thelaws of the United States of America and having its principll phce of business in san Francisco, CA and theowner and holder of a note and mortgage being foreclosed.

SECoND: On or about the l6th day of May, 1994, KEVIN PATRICK BRADY duly executed anddelivered an adjustable raie note whereby KEVIN PATRICK BRADY promised to pay the sum of $g6,900.00with interest on'the unpaid balance of the debt.

THIRD: That as security for the payment of said note KEVIN PATRICK BRADY duly executed anddelivered a mortgage in the amount of $86,900.00 which mortgage was recorded as follows and mortgage tax paidthereon:

Recording Date: May 17,lg94BoolclPage: 12219/538County (or City Register of): MONROE

The mortgage was subsequently assigned to BANK uNrrED by assignment.

and further assigned to WELLS FARGO BAIIK, N.A.

FOURTH: Th mortgaged premises nre commonly known as 508 LOCUST LANE, EASTROCI{ESTER, NY 14445 and more fully described in "scheduie A" attached to this complaint. The tax mapdesignation is known as all or part of SBL: lil.27-l-39.

/t

FIFTH: That the Defendant(s) KEVIN PATRICK BRADY so named, haslhave failed to comply withthe conditions of the mortgage and note by failing to pay principal and interest and/or taxes, assessments, v/aterrates, insurance prerniums, escrow and/or other charges that came due and payable on the lst day of November,2008 as more fully set forth below. Accordingly, Plaintiff elects to call due the entire amount secured by themortgage.

SD(TH: There is now due and owing on said mortgage the following amounts:Principal balance: $6 1,089.55lnterest Rate: 5.125o/oDate interest accrues from: October l, 2008Escrow advances: $25.17

Together with monies advanced for taxes, insurance, maintenance of premises and the costs, allowancesand reasonable attomey's fees if permitted by the mortgage. The interest rate stated above may change inaccordance with the adjustable rate feature of the note or loan agreement.

SEVENTH: In order to protect its security interest the Plaintiff or its agent has paid or may becompelled to pay during the pendency of this action, taxes, assessments, water rates, insurance premiums andother charges affecting the mortgaged premises. Plaintiff requests that any sums it or its agent has paid, togetherwith interest, be included in the sum otherwise due as provided for and secured by the mortgage.

EIGHTH: Upon information and belief all the defendants herein have or claim to have some interest inor lien upon said mortgaged premises or some part thereof which interest or lien, if any, has accrued subsequerrt tothe lien of Plaintiffs mortgage, or has been paid or equitably subordinated to'plaintiffs mortgage, or has beenduly subordinated thereto- The reason fior naming said defendants is set forth in "schedule B" ihat is attached tothis complaint.

NINTH: The reason for naming any governmental agency or instrumentalities of the Federal, State orlocal govemment (however designated), is set forth in "Scheduli C'ithat is attached to this complaint.TENTH: Upon information and belief the defendant(s) "Jobn Doe" are occupants of the premises beingforeclosed, or may be any persons, corporations or entities who claim, or may ctairn, a lien or other interest

against the premises.

ELEVENTH: If applicable, the mortgage originated in compliance with Banking Law Sections 595-aand 6l or 6-m and the Plaintiffhas complied with all Jf the provisions of Section 595-a oFthe Banking law and$Y rules and regulations promulgated therermder, Section 6-i and 6-m of the Banking Law, und Section 1304 ofthe Real Properfy Actions and Proceedings Law.

TWELFTH: Plaintiff requests that in the event this action proceeds to judgment of foreclosure and sale,said premises be sold subject to: any state of facts an inspection of the premises ioula disclose or an accuratesurvey of the premises would show; covenants, restrictions, easements and public utility agreements of record, ifany; building and zoning ordinances and possible violations of the same; any rights oitenants or persons inpossession of the premises; any equity of redemption of the United States of Amirica to redeem the premiseswithin 120 days; prior mortgages and liens, if any. If the mortgage secures more than one parcel, plaintiffrequests the judgment of foreclosure provide for the sale of the p*"itt itt a particular order to the extent necessaryto satisfy the indebtedness.

THIRTEENTH: There are no other actions or pending proceedings at law to collect or enforce the noteand mortgage.

2

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF DEMANDS JTIDGMENT:

l ' Adjudging and decreeing the amounts due the Plaintiff for principal, interest, costs, late charges,expenses of sale, allowances and disbursements, reasonable attorney's fees if provided for in themortgage and any monies advanced and paid which are secured by tlie mortgafe.2' That the defendants and all persons claiming by, through or under them and"eiery other person orentity whose right, title, conveyance or encumbrance is subsequent to or subsequently recorddor whose lien is. being challenged by being a defendant in this action, be barred and foreclosed ofand from all right, clainl lien, interest or equity of redernption in andio r"id;;;;ged prernises.3' That the said mortgaged premises, or such-part thereof * rn"y be necessary io ,u-ir" the amountsdue as aforesaid, be decreed to be sold according to law subject to the provisions ofparagraph'TWELF-TH" of this complaint.4' That out of the monies arising from the sale thereof, the Plaintiffmay be paid the amounts due onsaid note and mortgage' plus those items referenced in paragraph l, above, together with anysums expended as aforesaid, with interest as allowed by law upon any advances from the dates ofthe respective payments, so far as the amount of such rnorr"y properly applicable thereto will paythe same.

5.6.

That either or any of the parties to this action may become a purchaser upon such sale.Tll $it court, if requested, forthwith appoint a receiver of the rents and profits of said premiseswith the usual powers and duties.That the defendants referred

-to in paragraph "FIFTH" of this complaint and any original orsubsequent obligors so named in this *iotr" Tuy- 9" adjudged to pay any deficiency that mayt-:"T" after applying all of sai.d monies so applicable ttt"."to] unless the debt has been listed anddischarged in a bankruptcy petition, or unless the Plaintiff is unable to produce a copy of the note,in which case no deficiencyjudgment will be sought.In the event Plaintiffpossesses any other liens guintt the premises, they shall not be merged withthe same' Plaintiff specifically reserves its right to share in *v *rpr,i. monies arising tom thesale of the subject premises by virtue of its positio"

"r " luagrnent or other lien creditor,excluding the mortgage being foreclosed herein.That the Plaintiffmay have such other and firther relief as may be just, equitable and proper.

7.

8.

9.

Pursuant to federal law, this office is a debt collector.information obtained will be used for that purpose.

Attomeys for Plaintiff220 Nodhpointe Parkway Suite GAmherst, NY 14228Tel.:716-204-2400

We are attempting to collect a debt and any

STATE OF NEW YORKCOT]NTY OF ERIE )) SS.:Brad J. Davidzih Esq., being duly sworn, deposes and says:

That yow deponent is the attorney for the plaintiff, having an office at 220 Northpointe parkway,

Amherst, New Yorlq and that he has read the foregoing Summons and complaint and knows the contents thereof;that the same is true to his knowledge except as to the rnatters therein stated to be alleged upon information andbelief' and as to those matters your deponent believes it to be true. Deponent further states that the grounds of hisbelief as to all matters in the Complaint not stated to be upon his knowledge are based upon the original note,mortgage and/or financial statements, together with correspondence.

That the reason this verification is made by your deponent instead of the plaintiff is because the plaintiffdoes not reside or have an office for the conduct of business within the county of Erie, which is the county whereyour deponent has his office.

By:

20__Q3_.

,#*i3'#,,ru'rtifi*,fi,

Subscribed sworn to

,{+-j4'

STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF MONROE

Wells Fargo Bank, NA3476 Statevler,v Blvd.Fr. Mill, sc 29715, plaintiffVS

Kevin Patrick BradyJohn Doe, et al, defendant[s]

STEVEN J. BAUM, P.C.Attorney for Plaintiff220 Northpointe Parlaryay, Suite GAmherst, NY 142287162042400

SUPREME COURT

# 4419t09

Kevin Patrick Brady, defendant pro se508 Locust Lane

East Rochester, NewYork 14445s85 381 2063

RESPON.ISE

,fun*a^ fi^Aaz-

STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF MONROE

Wells Fargo Bank, NA3476 Stateview Blvd.Ft. Mill, SC 29715, ptaintiffVS

Kevin Patrick BradyJohn Doe, et al, defendant[s]

SUPREME COURT

# 4419/09

Mortgaged Premises508 Locust Lane

East Rochester, NY 14445sBL # 151.27.-1-39

Defendant, swom under penalty of law, now deposes answers to the aboveforeclosure action filed on March 31, 2009 and served on April 1, 2009.

i. I challenge the FIRST allegation that Plaintiff owns the note and thereforehas standing to bring this action. A foreign corporation,s standing, specificallywhether or not it ls authorized to do buslness in New Yo*, in accordance withNew York Law, including exceptlons, must be pled and proof to that effect mustbe provided.

2. I agree with sECoND and rHrRD allegauons, specificalty that the mortgagewas subsequently re'assigned. The parly to which lentered into agreement inMay 1994 was

Fleet Real Estate Funding Corp324 West Evans Street

Florence, SC 29501

3. lt is the assignee's burden to show proof of assignment of a particularaccount or evldence of consideration pald and dellvery of same. suchassignment rnust clearly establish that subject ac@unt was included ln theassignment.

4. A general assignment of accounts does not sailsry the requisite standardand the full chain of valid assignments must be provided, beginning wiilr theassignor where the debt originated and conduding with the plaintlff of standing.

,r

4-lir

5. I have,lost count of the transfers and/or re-assignments. However, uponinformatlon and belief, every successor, including Wells Fargo Horne Mortgagehas identified itself as the new loan 'Servlcer'. A document now served on meidentifies Wells Fargo Home Mortgage as the'creditor'. Exhiblt

6. I submit upon lnfonnation and belief that WF Bank and WF Home Mortgageare not the same entity. Both however do have offices ln Erie County andostensibly do conduct business there.

7. I therefore reject this complaint for lack of standing and lack of verification.'Until

a definitive etanding is established, I drallenge the courts jurisdiction to proceed.

8. Except where admitted, or explained, I deny all other allegations

9. Be it known that I have been ln rnortgage default since November 1, 2008.Admittedly, an action for foreclosure was lnevitable.

10. As shown withln, I have been constructively toreclosed from rnaintaining,renegotiating, and/or terminating this agreement. Through no fault of my own Ihave lost rny business; my only source of income. I have lost my professionalliconses, AND, my ability to market the subject propefty has long been lmpeded byvoid judgments encumbering the title.

11. I have essentially been under'house arrest'since these void judgments wereflled. I have been denied due process of law repeatedly to obtain relief fromconstructive govemment fraud 1 and other unconstitutlonal restraints.

12. Annexed and incorporated here under separate title are the pleadings forpending Supreme Gourt action[s] lo, interalia, vacate said void judgmeihts and tocompensate me forthe unfathomable and unconstltutionallosses I have suffered,includlng the inevitable foreclosure of my property. Note that the defendants in saidaction[s] include the instant'John Doe' defendants:.

'The People of flre State of New YorKSteven Feder, Attorney

1 Plead witr speclficity ln the incorporated affidavlt.

,--Jllit- '.1

13' Pursuant to RPAPL S 202t1lwhere such parties have an interest theinstant complaint qhgl! set forth: [dletalled facts showlng the particular nature of the[state'sl interest in or lien on the real property.

14. RPAPL sl311 [3] requires'every person having any lien orlncumbrance upon lhe real prcpertywhich ls clalmed to be subioct and subordinateto the llen of the plaintiff.

15. other than tho above, your deponent is the sole owner and the soleoccupant of the mortgaged premises.

FOREBEA.RANCE

16. on or abor,rt March 21,20og1 received a ,catdr up, proposal frorn wellsFargo l'lome Mortgage. 2 When attempting to implementthis plan lwas advisedby wells Fargo Homo reps that the only acceptable form of payment was by bankcertified funds or funds wired by Western Union.

17. Because I was not able to comply by March 30, 2009 3 this action hasapparently resulted. lam nevertheless stillwiling and able to make imrnediateunrertified payments to eitherthe seMcer or an authorized court.

BORROWERS RIGHTS

18' Pursuant to this agreement, upon informatlon and belief, {btonower hasthe right to pay the debt evldenced by thls Note, ln whote or ln part, wlthout chargeor penalty, on the flrst day of any month- Regardless that foreclosure proceedingsmay be initiated I arn stlll entitled to a conditional reinstatement whhh I lntend toavailon or before the date identified ln the catch up proposal.

19. The ELEVENTH paragraph rn the compraint is not appricabre.

2 Annexed ss A3 I do nd have a locat bank account. I cannot wlthdrBw more than $500.00 cash dally from ATM

4{

20. I challenge every assorted ,right, to share in any surplus monles arisingfrom the possible sale of these premises. Given such egregious circum$tancesto whic'tr I have had no qontroror compricrty, the rerief requested rises to thelevel of substantlve unconscionability.

21. I request all losses I suffer accordingly be reimbursed by the state.22' $hould this action proceed over my expressed jurisdictional obJections,I rnove for the following immediate relief.

23. lnsofur as the cornplaint[st atready ln progress manifest substantialreason[s]to belleve that an irnpartialtial cannot be had in Monroe county, Imove forchange of venue trrough onsolldation wlth sald action(s).

24. Annexed Doctcet # 2009-4gS Filed Marctr 25, 200925. correspondence recelved from April 6,2009 advises of altemativeplans availabte. [annexed as Bl

- i/Ei:st \rfua^i 1

\/. t]Y/4-/ 4f Kevin patrick Brady=*,**n1l"lffiilili

I do hereby depose under penalty of taw that errerylfring contained herein ls conect end truthfulto tlE best of my knowledge and that nothlng ls lntended or rlses to the level of frivolous,harasslng or othonrvise sarrctionable. 2A NYCRR 130.1

S'J-A'|E OIT NE\,\/ YORKStiPl{lr\,{tt COURT: CIOUNTY OIr NIONI{OI:

------------x\[.Ht,t,S ITARGO I]ANK. N.A,3-176 Statevieu l]ouleyardFl. \4ill. sc 29715

Plaintiff,

vS.

KIIVIN PAI-RICK BRADY,

JOIiN DOti (Said nanre being lrcririous,it being thc intention of Plaintill'todcsignate any and all occupants oflrrcmises being foreclosed herein. andanv pnrties. corporations or entitics.if an-r. having or claiming an inlcrestc''r lien upon the rtrortgaged prernises.)

Defendant(s).------------x

S'l'r!l'E OF South Clarolina )C]OLiNT'Y OF York_) ss:

Ilerman John Kennertv, being dulv su'om. deposes and sar,s:

l. That he is a -Vice

President Loan Docuntentation of \\'ELI.S l:,\Rij{)Ilr\NK. N.A., the Plaintiff in the above-referenccd aclion. and is fulll familiar g,ith t6e lhcls andcircumstances of this present foreclosure action.

2. 1'hat 1'our dg:ponent has rcad the Ansg,er submitted b1' tlre Dcfendanr. Kfj\/lNPATRICK BRADY' Pro Se, in the above-rcrferenced action. A cop1, of said Ansu.cr is attacheclhercto.

iAe3. f)ef-endant denies knorvledgc or infcrrmation sufficicnt to fonu a bcliit'as B-t6cj'trallegations contained in Paragraph "FIRS-I'" o1'rhe Coniplaint. -fhis denial is irnmaierialf$r rh...

gq)purposes of this motion, and a copr,of the complaint is attached hereto. :

4' Defendant adrnits thc- allegations contained in Paragraphs "SIICOND{and

AFFIDAVII'

INDIIX NO.: 4419t09

Mortgaged Premises:-s08 I-OCUSTI-ANtlIIASI- ROC}ltlsl'lilt. N Y I 44.+5SBI, #:151 .27 -t -39

birF't

rn-.B

.Jt4Qe?c{TIRD''

ol'tllLi Cotrtplaint i.ln(l. a:j :sucli. saiJ allcgatit'ns lue cstuhlislrccl lor thc lturppscs 9l'this rnptiep anrltltis action.

5. I)cli'nrlilnt dcnics tlre allcgatit'ns ctrntainetl in Paragroph "l;Ot,ilt't Il" ol' tlreCiortlpluittt' 'l'his clcnitl is intntatcriul tbr thc purposcs ol'rhis rnotion. r\ttac6crl ts lhc (''nrplaint osSchccltrlc'.'\'is rt copv ol'the lcgul tlescription tirr thc propcrll'bcing lirrcclosetl lrcrein.

6' I)t'fl'ndanl clcnics thc allc'gations containcd in l,aragraphs "l:llrl'11". "Sl.\l-ll" and"Sl:\'l:N'l-ll" of tlre Conrplaint. l.hcsc durials ul.c spurir)us. I harc clrcckcd thc rccorels kept in thcrcgulitr cotlrsc ol'bttsittcss lrl this institution. ancl conlintr that thc amounl statcd in thc C'.rnpllint t.be due altd osirtg to thc l)laintill-is in lact corrcct: rherc is duc and owinu an unpaid principrlbalancc ol'$61.089.55. ph-rs intercsl at the ratc trl'5.1159.i, frorn Ocrobcr l. 2008" plus larc chargcs.cscro\\' atliances in thc lunourll of $2-5.17. inspcction lLcs ancl rcturnr:cl chcck ttcs. trl-sether uithIttonies advatlced l'or taxcs. insttrancc and ntrinte nancc ol'tlre prentiscs. cosls. tlislrursc'rcnts. .nd

rc;'tsonablc iltt()rne\''s l'ccs. as penlittcd br tlrc loan docurncnls. 'l'o clatc, this institulion ltas '.1

reccired an1 lurthcr ll.l\lncnls, nor has tlrc l)cll'lrctuut subrnittccl prool'to clisputc thc arnouirt duc111{ 1rw'ing. l"ttrthcr. Plaintill'has thc right to arlvancc propcrt}'taxcs antJ lrgrleolrnsr's i'surancc r'thc e-rtcrtt llrat thc salllc rctllairt urtpaitl. llntl'or anr othcr charscs in orclcr to nr()tcct its r't,r.tgagesccuritr iutcrcsl.

7. l)cl-crrdant dcnics ths- allcsutions ct,rrtl.rincd in paragraph ,,LI(;l Il ll,, ol. thc('orrtplainl. 'l'his clcrlirl is irnntaterial. l)aragruph "l:l(itlf ll" of thc Corrrplaint rcll,rcnces trthcrpart-r'dcfcntlants ulrosc licn.s lrar,e acerucd sul.rsetlucrrt lg l[c licp ol'pllrintill.s m()rtgilse. and has ncrbcarilrg oll 3l'l\ dcli'ttscs or e lainrs thc I)ctcnclilnl rrlr.\ ltarc against thc I)lailrtilt'ip rSis.cti'n.

tl. l)ell'nr,lant clcnics thc allegltiolts conrtrilred in l)lrai:raJlh ,'NIN l.ll,,ol.lhc C.ornplaint,I)arrtura;rlt "\lN l'll" corrtuins tlre tpplieal.tlc llnguirge usetl *hcn tlrc [,nitetl St:rtcs ot'.,\nrcrica. thcStitlc ol'\c$ \'ork or a tllttnicipllitr is narnc.l us u rlclr,trtlarrr irr;.r lirrecfursurc actipp. ,\ dcrrial us t.

A7

this allegation is immatcrial for thc purposes ol'this motiotl'

9. Defendant clcnics the allegations contained in Paragraph " fEN'fIl" of the Complaint'

I-his clenial is im'raterial. paragraph "J'EN'rH" oI thc cornplai't sets foflh the capacitic-s of thc

delenclants, rvhich has not been proven ttl be inirccurate'

10. Defcndant denics the allcgatipns contained in Paragraph "E[-E\/["N'I'FI" o1'thc

compraint. plai'tiff has demonstrated the existence of the Note and Mortgage bcing foreclosed

hcrci'. beari'g the sig'arure of the Defe'dant. as uell as a cop)'of the required notices pursuant ttt

statute. If Defenda't *ishes to challenge the clocumentarv e'iclcnce protl'ered b5'the Plaintill-' thc'

Dctendant must do so by submission of matcriar e'idence noting its deficie'c1'u'ith specilicitl"

ll.I)efendarrtdeniestheallegationscontainedinParagraph''].\\'El',F.lII''clfthccomplaint. This denial is irrmaterial for the purposes of this motion

a'd has ro bcaring on aru'

defenses or claims the Def-endanl nla) har,e against the plaintilT in this foreclosure actio'' l;urther'

the Referee in this foreclosure action. as appointecl b1' this court, ma1' detennine rvhcthcr or not thc

premises to be foreclosed herein ma)'bc sold in parcels'

lz. Defenclant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph "TIIIR'fIrltlNTIl" ol'thc

compraint. Thc allcgations contained in paragralrh "TI.ilRTI1ENTII" u'ith rcspect tt olhcr actions

pcndirrgarenotl.ringnlorethanaformalrequirementof$l30loftheRPAPL.

13. l.hc Def-endant has either aclnrittecl to or gcnerally' denicd all of thc allegations

contained in trre cornplaint, and has raised no triable issue of fact regarding an1' of thr-' allegations'

In an acti.n to foreclose a N4ortgage. a prinra tacic enritlemenl to summary juclgment is established

bl,subrnitlingprclofofthcexistenceofthcNcrteandMortgageandtlreDefendant.sdelaultin

payment. The burclen now shifts to thc Delendanr to cornc fonvard u'ith evidence shori'ing the

cxistence of a triable fact. See, Berc)'Investors' Inc' v' Sun ' 239 '\'D'2d 161' 657 N'Y'S'2d 47 (lst

Dept. 1997):is. 237 A.D.ld 558' 655

a7

14. As and for a First Affirmative Defense, the nefendanicapacity and/or standing against the Defendant. This defense is spurious. The Defendant exesutJ;Mortgage contaot with Fleet Real Estate Funding Corp. The mortgage was subsequently assigned

to Bank United by assignment dated July 13, 1998. Effective February 73,2A01, Bank United

merged with and into Washington Mutual Bank, FA. WashinSon Mutual Bank F/M WashingtonMutual Bank, FA assigned the mortgage to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. by assignment dated January

18,2007. Upon the execution of said Assignment, the Plaintiff obtained all right, title and interest

in the Note and Mortgage and as such, has the right to accelerate the debt and commence this

action. This Court and the Defendant are respectfully referred to the Assignments of Mortgage and

Certificate of Merger, attached hereto. As the record holder of the Mortgage, the Plaintiffdoes have

legalcapacitytosuetheDefendantandthus,thisdefensefailsasamatteroflaw.

15. As and for a Second Affirmative Defense, the Defendant alleges that he has tried tomake payments and would like to have his loan reinstated. This defense is without merit The

Defendant fails to specifically state that payment tendered was sufficient to reinstate the Mortgage and

has fiuther failed to submit any evidence of said payrrents. Upon the Plaintif s acceleration of the

loan, the Defendant has the option of reinstating the Mortgage by paying all anears due and owing,

including all applicable fees and costs, as provided by the Mortgage instrument Even if Defendanthad made a pa]4ment to the Plaintifl it is well settled that a mortgagee is not required to accept an

insufEcient tender of palnnent of arears and may reject partial payment of arrears. United Cos.Lending Com. v. Hingos,283 A,D.2d764,724N.Y.S.}d134 (3dDept.2001); see also, Bankers TrustCo. v. Hoovis ,263 A.D.2,agll,694 N.Y.S.2d245(fd p"pt. 1999). Thereforg the Plainriffmay elect

3d

16. Furthermore, even if the Defendant is interested in working with the Plaintiff, to seek aforbearance, reinstatement and/or workout agreement with the Plaintitr, no such agreement has been

approved as of the date of this Summary Judgment motion. Further, there is no guarantee that the

Defendant will quatiff for a workout agreement or that the Defendant will, in fact, submit sufficient

funds in order to reinstate the Note and Mortgage. As it currently stands, there is a written Note,

secured by a Mortgage wherein the Defendant agreed to make certain monthly payments to the

Plaintiff. The Defendant failed to make the required payments and as such, the Plaintiff is entitled to

accelerate the debt and seek a Judgment of Foreclosure. See. RPAPL $1301; Bercy Investors. Inc. v.

S]qr;r., supra; Federal Home L. gan Morteage Corp. v. Karastathis, supra; Greater N.e_]g._York Sav. Bank v.

2120 Realtv. Inc., 202 A.D. 2d 248, 608 N.Y.S. 2d 463 (1" Dept. 1994). Notwithstanding theforegoing, the granting of the Summary Judgment application by the Plaintiff does not in any way

eliminate.the possibility that, in the future, the Defendant may reinstate the loan or enter into a

workout/forbea.rance agreement. As zucll this defense must fail. ,

17. With respect to the Answering Defendant's Cross-Claims, it is respectfully submittedthat the Answering Defendant's claims should not be a basis for denying PtaintifPs application for

Summary Judgment. In fact, the Answering Defendant's Cross-Claims would prove overlyburdensome to the Plaintiff should they be allowed to survive and, as such, they should be severed

or order separately tried. It is respecffully submitted that there is a Note, secured by a Mortgage,

wherein the Mortgagor, Kevin Patrick Brady, signed said documents. Further, it is undisputed that

the Mortgagor has defaulted under the terms of the Mortgage.

18. The Answering Defendant's Cross-Claims have no effect on the foreclosure actionherein. Further, the Cross-Claims would be unnecessarily burdensome to the Plaintiff if they were

Marine Midland Bank v. Berley, 90 A.D.2d 646, 456N.Y.S.2d 27o (3'd Dept. 1982). However, ifPlaintiff were to be required to await the decision of this Court on Answering Defendant's Cross-

Clairns, Plaintiffs foreclosure action would be unnecessarily delayed. The Plaintiff should not be

required to await the outcome of a trial before recovering the Mortgage debt. Spano v. perry. 59

Misc.2d 1062,3A1N.Y.S.2d 836 (Sup. Ct. Tompkins Cty. 1969).

19. Based upon the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that the Cross-Claims of theAnswering Defendant be severed or ordered separately tried pursuant to CPLR $603.

20. The Defendant also requests a change of venue due to the fact that he believes hecannot have an impartial trial in Monroe Corurty. First and foremost, the Mortgage Agreementexecuted by the Defendant on May 16, 1994 clearly states that the Mortgaged Premises is located in

' Monroe Cor'rnty in the State of New York. The Defendant acknowledged this when he executed the

Mortgage Agreement on May 16,1994. Based upon the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted thatthe Plaintiffhas designated the proper county for the venue of this action. The Mortgaged premises

is located in Monroe County and, as such, the proper venue is Monroe County. The Defendant hasnot offered substantiation for his claim that Monroe County would not a fair venue. Based upon the

foregoing, and pursuant to the CPLR, the Supreme Court of Monroe County is the proper venue for

.- this action. As such, the Defendant has faited to create any hiable issue of fact and the relief he has

requested is without any authority whatsoever.

WHEREF'ORE, deponent respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Answer of theDefendant KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, Pro Se, and that Summary Judgment and Order ofReference be granted in favor of Plaintiff, and for permission to treat said Answer as a limitedNotice of Appearance, entitling said Defendant to receive, without prior notice, a copy of the Notice

of this action be amended to reflectthe deletion of "John Doe" as a party defendant, that the address

of the Plaintiff be deleted from the caption and that the caption be amended to reflect the deletion

and for an Order appointing a Referee to determine the amount due to the Plaintiff, and to determine

whether the premises being foreclosed can be sold in parcels, and that all non-appearing and non-

answering defendants be deemed in default, and said defaults be fixed and determined, and for such

other and further relief as this Court may deem just and propgr.

Name:Title:Documentation-

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

this 12

Carolina )York_)

On the _12--day of

_June_ in the year 2009__ before me, the undersigned,personally appeared Herman John Kennert)'_ the subscribing witness to the foregoinginstrument, with whom I am personally acquainted, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose andsay that he/she resides in

_ Fort Mill (if the place of residence is in a city, include the

street and street numbero if any, ttrereog; tttut n"Ahe knows -Herman

John Kennerty- to bethe individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument; that said subscribingwitness was present and saw said Herman John Kennerty_ execute the same; and thatsaid witness at the time subscribecl-hislher name as a witresi thereto.

Sworn to before me

Notary Pfblic

STATE OF

of individual taking proof.)

JJFSCM.fsc.org

V/ELLS FA-RGO BANK, N'x:Plaintiff,

vs.

KEVINPATRICK BRADY, ET AL.,

Plaintiff has advanced:$25.17$0.00$0.00$0.00

Plaintiffis due:$0.00$0.00

INDEX NO.: 441'l09

MORTGAGED PREMISES:508 LOCUSTLANEEAST ROCHESTER" NY 14445

SBL #:151.27-l-39

Defendant(s).

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINACOUNTY OF YORKCITY OF FORT MILL

_BarrettHemdotr_--- being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. That deponent is the Vice hesident Loan Docurnentation of WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.2. Your deponent has reviewed the books and records of the Plaintiff, as well as the Complaint herein.

Based upon personal knowledge, I hereby attest to and veri8r the truth of the matters asserted in theComplaint.

3. Upon review of the books and records kept in the regular oourse of business by this institufion, I confinnthat there is in fact a default under the terms of conditions of the loan documents. The last payment madewas applied to the monthly payment due the 1st day of October, 2008. As such, the ioan is now due formonttrly payments commencing with the payrnenl due on the lst day of November, 2008. Because of saiddefault, Plaintiff elected to accelerate the loan. As set forth in the Complaint, at the time ofcomrnenoement there was due and owing the principal balance of $61,089.55, plus 5.I25% interest fromthe lst day of October, 2008, together with: As of the signing of this Afiidavit of Merit, there have bee,t'rno changes to the adjustable rate note.

-----------x

): SS.:)

for taxes and/or insurance;for prop erfy inspections ;for maintenance of premises;for brokers price opinion.

for late charges;for non-sufficient funds charged.

Ttrjs action was brought to foreclose a mortgage executed by KEVIN PATRICK BRADY dated the 16thday of May, 1994, and recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Cor:nfy of Momoe on the 17th day ofMay, 7994 at Liber 12219 of Mortgages at Page 538 in the original principal amount of $86,900.00. Themortgaged premises is located at 508 LOCUST LANE, EAST ROCIIESTER, NY 1M45. Said mortgagewas duiy assigned by assignment dated the 13th day of July, 1998, and recorded on the 6th day ofOctober, 1998, in the Office of the Clerk of Monroe County at Liber 1257,Page 99; which mortgage wasfurther assigned by assignment dated the 18th day of January, 2007, and recorded on the 9th day ofFebruary 2007,tnthe Office of the Cterk of Monroe County at Liber 1561, Page 336;

4.

in.ortgage tax due l)aidltrareon.

7.

8.

Deponent confirms that the required notice of default was sent timely, in accordance with the provisionsof the Note and Mortgage herern, and that the same was in proper fonn.

In addition to the sums set forth in the Complaint, Ptaintiff may advanoe, in order to protect its securityinterest, additional rnonies for the payment of taxes, instnance and maintenanoe of the premises, whichaccrue and are expended by virnre of Defendants default. Said amounts will be provided to the Refereeand substantiated by appropriate evidence.

As of the date of this affidavit, the following has occuned:a) Defendant KEVIN PATRICK BRADY was personally served on the lst day of April, 2009, andhis/her time to answer has not yet expired as of the date of this Affidavit.

Yorn deponent respectfuily submits thal should the status of any of the Defendants change between thetime that this Affidavit is executed and the time of Plaintiffs application to Court, said changes will bereflected in Plaintiffs Attomey's Affinnation of Regularity, which wil1be executed at a later date.

Deponent has reviewed the legal description of the property and has determined that the mortgagedpremises consists of a single parcel and shouldbe sold as such.

-- SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -_

9.

12345678I

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

IN NEW YORK SUPREME COURTCOUNTY OF MONROE

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., plaintif

V

KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, defendant in error

VOID JUDGMENTS

STATE OF NEW YORK

M19r09

3b

At a Special Term of the Supreme Court ofthe State of New York, CorntY ofMONROE held in the Corrnty Courthouse inh,yrwPRESIDING;HON. JOHN J. ARK

Justice of the SuPre'lrre Court

STATE OF NEW YORK;uPRElrffi couRT: couNry oF MoNRoE

4614 on the0c,7 .

-

INDEX NO.: 4419109

Mortgaged Premises:508 LOCUST LANEEAST ROCHESTER, NY 14445

SBL#:tsr.27-1-39

WELLS FARGO BA}'iK, N'A.3 47 6 Stateview Boul evaxdFr. Mill, sc29715

Plaintitr,

vs.

KEVIN PATRICK BRADY'

JOHN DOE (Said name being fictitious'it being the intention of Plaintifftoa*sig;te anY and all occuPants ofpt"tiit"t being foreclosed herein, andanv parties, corporations or entities'if ty, having or claiming an interestor lien upott ih" mortgaged prernises')

ORDER

Defendant(s).

Upon reading Plaintiffs Affidavit of Herman John Kerurerty' the Vice Prosident Loan

DocumentationofWELLSFARGoBANK,N'A.,datedthel2thdayofJung2009,andupon

readingtheSummons,Complaint,aswellastheAnswersubmittedbyDefendant'KEVIN

'ATRI.K BRADY, pro se, and upon proof that aI other defendants have been duly served and

their time to answer has expired or they have filed a Notice of Appearance, and after bearing

steven J. Baum, P.C., Plaintiffs attomey in tbis action in support of said motion' and after

7l hJLr6;r: l::a=] s5t-...t Llt'! g=

f;i r\.):::: J;-

.J

Ii

iI

I

a ' * hh^naz9RDERBD, thal the Answer of the Defendant, KxyIN PATRICK BRADY, Pro Se' be

md is her66y dismissed arld that summary judgment be ancl is hereby granted in favor of

PlaintiflWELLS FARCO BA.]IIKN-A'; and itis fiirthr

ORDERED, that the Answer of the Defendanf KEVIN PA'IRICK BRADY, Pro Se,be

reated as a limited Notice of Appearance, entitling said Defendant to receive, without prior

rotice, a copy of tte Notice of SaIe Notice of Dlscontinuance and Notice of Surplus Monies;

md it is fruther

oRDERED,ttrat','JohnDoc',bedroppedasapartyDefendantinthisactionasno

enants reside at the premises, and that the caption of this action be amended to reflect the

leletion of t'John Doen as a par'ty Defendant; and it is ftrther

ORDERED, that the caption shall read as follows:

ITATE OF NEW YORKIUPREME COURT: COI'INTY oF MONROE

---------xYELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

INDEX NO.: 4419/09

Mortgaged Premises;508 LOCUST LANEEAST ROCHESTER, NY 1 4445

SBI, #:l st.z7-1-39

Plaintiff,

DefEndant(s).--*-X; and it is further

s.

SVIN PATRICK BRADY,

ORDERED, thAt Sefef,ee in this foreolosure action to detcrmine the amount due and to determine whether or not

.e pre,oises can be sold in parcels; and it is further.1YI- onnpnrD, that by accepting this appointment the Referee ce$ifies that he'fdreis inls

crmpliance with Part 36 of the Rules of the Chief Judge (22hiYCRR Par-t 30, including, but not

limited to, section 36.2(c) ("Disqualifications from appointmart"), and section 36'2(d)

("Li mitations on appointnents b/s ed upon compensation ")'

)7/@'/fu.Wbe appointed

ON. JOHN J. ARK

^t+o7

38

12345678I

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

IN NEW YORK SUPREME COURTCOUNW OF MONROE

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., plaintif

KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, defendant in error

STATE OF NEW YORK

4/19109

Who areTalin GheyvandianMary Jo McGowenSusan Stratman

Maria Leonor GerholdtBryan Bly

And why are their names on so many documents ?

(e

rug* t 371356892EU*: 526?885 Nt1_^..cNr{A 81e112

'', N:/ c)-

AssrcDruEl*r oF }'oRTGAGE z IVa.FOR GOOD AI\rD VAITUABI,E CONSIDE&ATION, the sufficiency of which ishereby acknowJedged, the undersigned,Fr,ggi'uoRrAg3 c5np., a sout'h caiolina corp'' whoseaddress is 1333 Main street, columbia, sc 29201, tassignor),by these presents does

"orrt'*y, grant, seII' assign' transfer and set

over rhe desstii"a-il.ttgi;"iieed of truet togecher with Lhe certainnoce(s) describla-trr"i"in"with aI1 interegt, all liens, and any rightsdue or to become due thereon toBA!!K IINITED, a-f"aet"lly Chartered Savings Bank' whoseaddrege ia 32OO Southwest Freeway, Suite-1600, Houston. TX 17A27its successors or assigns, (asslgnee) 'taortgage dated o5/L5/94 , made bYKEVI$ P}TRICK Bn}DYTO FI.IET REilJ ESTATB TUNDING CORP'i; ih;;rincipaf sum of $8e ,goo.oo and recorded an a5/L7/e4in Liber l22Lg page 0538 , DocS11 {Al?t in the dfice of theRegistry of MoNRob countv, N-Y' LL-[li" I * gffF F3T EEs- 5Prop Addr: 5Og LOC(}ST LAI{E -r L i5

EAST ROCflESTER,Ny 14445-200 :i P F{ruP t3Which mort,gag,e has not been further assigned. of record ghdsfor eachaesignment-noted the mortgage was wholly assigned. :li -ifrir"e""ignmeni-is not su63!ct to the r6guiremenEs of section 275 ofghe ReaI property Law because it is an aJeignment within Che secondarymorEgage market.Dated: A7 /l'3l9SFlrEEl UORTGACE CORP - e /k/a FleoEBucceasor by lrrgr to FLaza llone

Real Betate FtrndLag Corp.uortg.ge^Serv.Lclng

DE LA tnsgs

SEatse of CALIFORNIA County of l,OS ANGELESan o7/L3/98 , before me personally came TALIN GHEYVAIiIDIAIiIto me known, who beins bj, me duly sworn, did depose and say s/hereaides at c,/o 420 N. BRAND BLVD. 4TH FL-

GLENDAL,E,CA 91203 and that s/heie the VICE PRESIDET{f ofFLBET MORTGAGE CORP. f/k/a Fleet Real Essate Funding corp.successor by merger to Plaza Home Mortgage Servicing CorPorationthe corporalion lescribed herein and which executed the foregoinginstrumintr with tshe knowledge and consent of the board of direc-tors of gaid corporation, and that s/he signed his name theretoin like order.

prepared bY:M.HoylNTC,42O N. Brand 81.4prop-rty ID(S/B/L) I 1sl .2?-Return by Mail to:Nationwide Title Clearing420 N. Brand Blvd. 4th FlGlendale, CA 91203

i,Ef- Nocaryesion expires . az /25 /L999

Glenda1e, eA 91203 (8oO) 346-9:.52

HE 50?r{E lffilftltmmffiil

,I, t ?iMuft6ldt67ttct

Wolldr 61626?t863Pool ft Prlr.tct

:

^SIIIGNMET{T O' MONTGAGB

Fon GooD AND VALU DLB-coNtDEMrroN, rhr'dncroncy or whrct rr hcnby rtrnur.dt4 ooudcnl3no4 wASHNGmN Mulual rrnr prir wrsnrr.rcion uumiiiii'iili succpssor8v MEncEn ro IANK UN,"ED, mmsE AorrREst rgrilo amrnrmdoriif]rr.bnBnc8, sct50lr ( ssrcno$r ly ttrsc.prarcnc.doo colvcy, gnrt. dr, rgign, rrrrrfcr urr g o,or ii&gmamcl!l83 bicdE t'idl lh. ccttdn ttlcr) q1lluor rrcr* qatur wlo rtl inarcrr reuror dty, u rlcar, rndant ddll dtl. q lo bcco'' du. dlcru lo wEr,Ls raf,Go grilK, Ne, wHoai ADDrEssii l HoMEctMrt

-s, DEsrrorr{Bs, rA 16rr, mr succgsltong ol rsiircnq 6ssrcrgti;;;r d*dorlgr99a . nrda bv KRyIN tATntCtr rn Dv o rrr8f, BEAL W;rrn rur,oiirc -d6nr. n o.plrlprl srrn of tE6,9(tr'dl urd rccot&d on 0J/l?/l9ll in Libcr l2l!19 pgo 0tt!1, x.r rn ,r.1m. or rr,.R.aLf, of MONROE Coutft, NJ.

qj-oot{{4PropAddn S0tU)CttSTt^N \

EASft ROCflESTEn. Ny taaa5Sb &hitft ruch.d for Arrignnrerrr llodillcrtlonr ccThlr Adgncm lrltoarubJdro rhc rc$rirltBroof tdlo?! of rhc Rcrl hopcrry Lrrbcc]roil b rarsignmal withltr Or ron&ryr nror34o nrta

ll\MAN,Y

Irrt dr Tllls

STAIEmrs

O'JANUANYlllTllBYEATM'tArr FngA WASBTNGTON MTTTUAL IAM(, rA SIBCESXTR ty

vrcaPtESrDEtiTBy

rltlalOOT'NTYOFNNSIAI

OFTANITAIY NTHEYE nAft,bcfcrartcudarigrcdparoolly rggocodMAffp.Tggt l*"I g ne aprovod Errlc o OobubofruirfroryorlUcncioL rb hdivi&nlJO MC1!OWAI{. pcrtondtt kmryn b rn a povod p nc o rtr bub ofwhco |umir rrtrcrlbod o tho rioln irnrmt rd rtrbvlc.rtGa o 1l5hr hc&focrcold rhc rur ln h6/tcroprdry'rhlbyhir/lrrrlglututoo ric hrrunrr* 6c indirl&nl,or rll. pasoupo. t*drqf whkb rl,.l*113*1::1ry-ry rq!'-unrcd. rtd rhr lrdr rndrvrdurr mrlc oicr rygcit rco t ri ,r,o il-rn a in

lblrryhrbllc

My oonnisior crplrcl 0l1fi 161209

ryq!I!.{ Dyr J. Ldrdrt/IrtiQzlo AL rt No.q trto H|ttor, FL 3a6!C (t0oltacrtsthoFtr rD(srB/L! 26lt0l 151.27-t-39RcnnbyMdlnc NlhorldrTlilrClcring

2lOAle t9No.dtPdmllstor.E 3a6B

JPtrrCwMASN6tt?t6t cI2s5ur0 st6.50

. :...Y s

!1llr.:o.

.:\i. ep

ri.H

EXHIBIT Ckrrt tf$lll

ffi ilflilt ffi ffi ilril[illffi ffi ililmilililffir6t625tlt6lGto.LOAIII#I: 6162678863 LOAIII#Z:6267E86 SEQ#: NEWYORKMERSID#:

ALLONEEThis Allonge is attached to and rnade a part of that certain Note or Bond, or Lost Note Affrdavit in lieu of

' that certain Note or Bond,

Dated: 511611994M4de By:

To:

KEYIN PATRJCK BRADY, MortgagordTrustors

FLEET REAL ESTATE I{.J}II}ING CORP., Mortgagee/Benefi ciary

In the Amount of : $86,900.00 r

PlErertv.Address : 508 LOCUST LAIYE, EAST ROCHESTER, NEW YOR f 4445

Pay to the order of

Washington MutualUnited

without recourse.

Bank, FA, successor by merger to Bank

Its: Authorizcd Representative

4

oo

PAY TO THE ORDER OF

q&S8o#inwthoL{ Recoursa

Hsst Real Esri,ie Fun-d-ing CorP'

'^w*a# (Doeument Elecuting Olflcer

t1