Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Schlomann2017 NY Slip Op 32475(U)

September 11, 2017Supreme Court, Suffolk CountyDocket Number: 018292/2011

Judge: Howard H. Heckman, Jr.Cases 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.

Shon ~orm Order

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

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

---~-----------------------------------------------------------)( WELLS FARGO BANK, N./\. D/B/A AMERICAS SERVrNG CO.,

Plaintiffs,

-against-

JASON SCHLOMANN,

Defendants.

----------------------------------------------------------------)(

INDEX NO.: 018292/201 1 MOTION DA TE: 05/09/2017 MOTION SEQ. NO.: 002 Mot D

003 Mot D

PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: WOODS OVIATT GILMAN, LLP 700 ST ATE STREET ROCHESTER, NY 14614

DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY: IV AN YOUNG, ESQ. 80 ORVILLE DR., STE. 100 BOHEMIA, NY 11716

Upon the following papers numbered I to 32 read on this motion : Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Causl! and suppo11ing papersJ.:lL: Notice of Cross Motion and suppo11ing papers 14-30 : Answering Affidavits and suppo11ing papers_; Replying Affidavits and supporting papers 31-32 : Other_; (and after hearing counsel in support and opposed to the motion) it is,

ORDERED that this motion by plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. seeking an order: 1) granting summary judgment striking the answer of defendant Jason Schlomann; 2) substituting Kerri Murphy as a named party defendant in place and stead of the defendant designated as "John Doe"; 3) deeming all appearing and non-appearing defendants in default; 4) amending the caption; and 5) appointing a referee lo compute the swns due and owing to the plaintiff in this mortgage foreclosure action is granted to the following extent:

ORDERED that plaintiff is awarded partial stunmary judgment dismissing all affim1ativc defenses set forth in defendants' answer except the defense asserted in the defendant's cross motion papers related solely to the plaintiff's compliance with RP APL 1304: and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiffs application to substitute Kerri Murphy as a named party defendant in place and stead of the defondant designated as ''John Doc" is granted and the caption is hereby amended; and il is fu11her

ORDERED that plaintitrs 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 plaintiff shall be marked "not signed"~ and it is further

ORDERED that the cross motion by defendants Melisa Sabo and Joseph G. Kubacki for an order pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(3). 32 I 2 & RPAP 1304 dismissing plaintiff's complaint for lack of standing and for failure to timely serve pre-foreclosure statutorily required 90-day notices of default

[* 1]

or. in the aitcrnati\\..'.. lkll) i11g plaintiff, SUlllnHll") judgllltlll lllOtion is <.knicd: anJ it is furth1.'1"

ORDERED that pursuant to CPl.R 3212(gl in aid ford ispositio11 of"th1.· .11.:tion. the sok n.:mai11ing. issue to be dctc.:rminc.:d in this rorcclosun.: action shall concern whether the plaintiff complied with pre-forcc.:losure RPi\PI . l :lO-i 90-day notice requirements and the trial or this action shall be limited to that issue: and it is further

ORDERED that all parties shall app<.:ar for a court contcrcnc<.: to ready t 1is maller for trial or to provide a briding -;d11:duk· fur an adJ iti \lllal s1111 llltdl"~ judgm1.:1ll nu1liu11 ( .Hl "."old f>tt;;;s,·k f.'lie::l'f" Inc. 1·. Sc'1/e.,inger. l.19 AD3d 810. :n 1\YS1d 28-i (2"'1 Dept.. 2016)) at 9:30 a.m. 011

September 2(L 2017 in Parl 18 at the Courthouse lm:atcd at I Cnurt Street. Rivet hl'.ad, ' Y: and it i-; !"mt her

ORDERED lhut plaintiff is directl!d Lo serw a copy of this order mm.:nd inµ. the caption upon the Cak11dar Ckrk or the Court: and it is rurther

ORl>ERED that plaintiff is directed to file a notice of entry within live days of receipt ol'thi!'> Order p1.irsuanl lo 22 1 YCRR Section 202.5-b(h)(J).

Plaintiff's action seeks lo foreclose a mortgage in the original sum 01'$24>7,500.00 <.:x<.:<.:utcd by tkkndanl Jason Sd1lonrnnn on December 15, 2005 in lavor or American Bwkers Conduit. On the s~tmc dale dcli:ndant Schlomann also executed a promissory note promising lo re-pay the entire amount of the indcbu:dncss to the mortgagi..: lcn<..kr. By assignment dated .July 2~. 2010 Mortgage Uectronie Registration Systems, Inc. as nominct' l(>r J\mcrican Brokers Conduit assigned the mortgage lo plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank. N./\. Plaintiff claims that dcfondant Schlomann defaulted under the tcnns or the mortgag1.: and note by foiling lo make timely monthly mortgage pa) men ts heginning January I. 2011 . Plaintiff comm<.:need this action by filing a summors. complaint and notic1: of pcndenc) in the Suf"folk County Clerk's Onicc nn June 3. 2011. Plain ilrs motion seeks <111

order granti nµ su111mary j udg1m:nt stril-. i ng del"cndanl · s answl'.r and for the up poi nlment or a rcleret:.

In support or lhei r cross mot ion and in opposi lion Lo plaint i Ir s mot ion, dckmlanl suhtn its an nn allorney's arlinnation and claims that: I ) pluinti ff foiled to serve prc-l'oreclosurc 90-tlay notices or dcll1ult in compliance with Rl'J\PI. 130.+ rcquire1rn:nls~ and 2 ) plaintiff lads standing to maintain thi-; action requiring dismissal of the complaint. lklendant claims that plaintiff i1ilcd lo strictly co111pl) "ilh Rl't\PI. 130-1 since lh<.:rl' is insurtici<.:nt proof of service ol"the r<.:quir<.:d IJO-da) notices and sinn· tlw l'nntenls of th<.: daimed notices is dclicicnt in fa iling lo set forth th.: corred lllll-frt:c l11.'!pli11e 1111mher and in foilinµ to list Jl\<.: appn)\'<.:d housing cou11scling <.tgcncies. lkl\.:ndanl also claims the e,·idcnce suhmittl!d h) plainti IT in support or its summary judg1rn:11t motion foils lo prm c that the plaintitTlrns standing lo prosccuti.: this <.H.:lio11 since th<.: documentary e\'idcm·c pro,·cs th~1t the 11riµinal kndcr O\\lll'd th!.'. mmtgug<.: and note on the date this action \\as co111111c11ccd.

In oppositi(>n lo the cn>'is motion a11d in l"urthcr support of"its motion. pluintiff suhmits two allornL'Y artir111a1i1rn-; and an anida,·it li\ 1m a \\\·lls l·argo Bank vie!.'. pr1.·sident o "loan documenlallon. and argues that no txisis e:-;ists 1< 1 den) plaintil('i applicmio11 1C.11 ;111 or der grn 111 i11g summary judg1m:nt. l'laintifl daims that th<.: proof '>llhmith.:d in the form of"lhc 1rJida,·i1 from the \\ell s I-.1rgo 'ic1.· pr1.•..,itknl. toµl.'lhcr \\ ith copies or the prnmissor~ note a11d mn1 lµag1.· ag.r1.·1.·1111.·nt.

-2-

[* 2]

prm idc suCficicnt e\·idence entitling 1hc mortg:Jge lender to foreclose the llHH1g-tgc. Plaintiff contends thl.! \ice prcsidcm·s affida,·it detailing the bank records pcrtaining tot ic dd(:n<l:mi·s note and rnongagc satistics the business records c:--.ecption to the hc~nsay rule: and re. cals that the delendant has dcl(ntltcd u11tkr the tc:rms o l" thc mortgage by failing lo mah· 11w1 lgagc payments 1(11· rnon: than six years. J>Jai11tiff cla1ms the c\·idcncc shows thnl \Vdls Fargo lbnk. N.J\. has standing to maintain this auion as the holder and physical possessor of the promissory note wi th an attached ullongc indorscd in hlallk since .June 22 .. 200(1. l'lainti IT also claims that the prool suhtniw.:d :·dim' s that the ddcndant \\as properly served with the pn.:-fon.:ciosure 90-da~ defauil. oticc::. in cl>1nplia1H:c "ith RP J\ Pl. Scctil1n UO.+.

rhc proponcnl of a Sllllltnary judgmcnl motion lllUS{ make a pritna foci1.: SIHl\\ ing or rntitlement lo judgmt.:nt as a mallcr or Jaw. tendering sufficient cvidcnc<.! to climinak any material qucstion of fau from the case. The grant or summary judgment is appropriate only when ii is clear th;1t 110 material and triable issues or focl have been presented (Sil/mun 1·. T11·e111ie1h ( 'elltw:1•-Fo.r Fi/Ill ( ·orv .. J NY2d Jl)5 ( 1 <J57)). Thc moving party beurs the initial burden nl' provi11g cntitkrnent to sun1mary judgment (If 'i11egrwl 1·. ,vn I A!eclirnl Center .. <>.+ NY1d 851 (I 985) 1. Once such proof has bet.:n proffered. tht.: hurdt.:n shirts lo the opposing party who. lo dd°t.:at the tnntion. must ortcr evidt.:m:e in admissible form. an<l must set forth facts sunicient tn require a trial or any issue of foci (CPU~ J212(b): '/.11ckemu1111·. Ci~i· <?I Ne1r York, ..f<) 'Y2t.I 557 (l 980)). Summ:1ry judgment shall only be granted when therc an.: no issues of material fact and the evidence requires the t:ourt lo direct a jut.lgmcnt in favor or the movant as a matter or Jaw (Friends o/Animals ' '· : ls.vJciared Fur 1\/<1111!/itcfwws. 4(1 NY2d I 065 ( 1979)).

Entitlement to summary judgment in favor of the foreclosing plaintiff is established .. prima l~1cie by thi..: plainti 1r s production of the mortgage and the unpaid note, and cvid ... ·ncc ()r dcfoult in paymcnL (S<'<' fl 'ells Forgo /Jank 1Y.A. 1·. 1~·rohoho. I '27 /\D3d I 176. CJ 1 Y~3d 3 12 (2"'1 Depl.. 2015 ): Well.\ Forxo Bw1k. N.. I. 1· .• I Ii. 122 /\DJd 726 .. 995 'YS2d 735 (2"'1 Dept.. 2014 )). \\'here the plaintiff's slanding. is placed in issue hy 1he ddcntl:.mt's answcr. the pluintiff must also cstahlish its standinµ as part or its prima focie slw\\·ing (:l11rom J,ou11Senices1 •. Tuy/or. 25 YJd 355, 12 NYS3d 612 ('.W IS): J,ow1rnre 1·. Firshing. 130 J\D3d 787, 14 NYSJd 410 (2'"1 J>cpt., 2015): 11."·:IJ(' Hunk US..J. N. .1. ''· Hu/Jfisf<'. 128 1\DJd 77. 10 NYSJd 255 (2'"1Dept.. 2015)). In a forcclosure act ion. a plai 111 i IT has stn11d i 11g i r it is ci !her the holdcr oL or the assignee o L the underlying.. note at the timc that the al.'.tion is commcncl..!d (:lurorcr /.()(Ill ,)'en•icus 1·. Tt~l'lor . . \'l'/Jru.: l·:111igrw1t JJ011k 1·.

I uri:::::u. J ']_lJ ,\l):ld '>·I. 11 NYS3d 129 (2"'1 Dept.. 20 15 )). l:ithcr a \Hillen nssig 1mc111 or thc nutc or the physil·al transll.•r or the tlotc lO lhc plainliffprior Ill COtnllll.!llt:ClllCnl orthc ac'.iOil is sufficicnl lo tra11sl\.:r the obliµati1111 a11d ll) prm·idc s1:1ndi11g (I 'c·lls /·i1rg,o 1Ju11k . . \ .. I , .. /1urkc r 1.25 .t\ 111d X48. ) NYS3d 130 (.2'"1 lkp!.. 2015): l ·.: ... : 1Ja11k 1·. (i11.1 ·. 1.25 J\lr1d 845. 5 IYS3d I l(i 1,.2"'1 lkpt.. .2015)). \ plaintirrs ~lltachmt.:nt 01'<1 duly i11dorst.:d no1c to its rnmplailll or to the ccrtilic:ah· nl'111cri1 n.;quirl'd pursuant to ('J>l.R '.1012( h). coupkd \\ it!J a11 alfolavi t in which it allegt.:s tlwt it h.td possession t11' the: 110t1: priur to 1hc co11 11111..·ncc111e1ll n f'th1.: action. h;1s bern held 10 co11stitu1c: due: prol>l'of thc plai111irrs s1:111dinµ t(1 pn•sl..!rnlc its claims liir li1rcclosurl.'. and sale (.l/ 1,\/orgu11 ( '/ul\·e /11111k .\ ' .1. '" II dnhaga. 1-12 1\IHd (1~3. 37 NYS3d 286 n"'1 lkpt.. 20 1(,): F\"i\1.1 r. foka}'llt:: II. Ille. . 1-t i\D3d 50<1. J5 \JY\)d 21<1 (2'"1 Dcpl.. 20 1(1): l><'llfscll<' 1Ju11k \ 'atimwl 'frmt Co. 1·. l.<'it!.'1. 117 /\l>1d 8.+I. 28

YS3d 86 (2;"1 l>c:pt.. 20 I (1 ): .Yul iomtar .i lortg<1~1 · U.< · 1· ( 'ari::o11e. 1.2 7 1\ J) )d I) I. 1) r\ YS>d ; 15 ( 2 ''1 lkpt.. .2015) ).

l'rnper -;crvii.:l· or RPJ\l'I. 110.+ IHllict.:s ()I\ horrmvcr(s) an: condition'i prl' ;c:drnt to !he

., -.l-

[* 3]

l'OJ111l1l'.IH.:~·111cPI of a fon,:chlSUn.: aclion. and Ille plaintiff has lhe burden of e-;tablishing COl11pliarn.:1: \\ilh lhi-; co11ditio111.l11rorc1 /.0<111.)'cn·i<:es. I.I.(' 1· ll'eish/11111. 85 1\D3d 9). 9::!3 1'1S2J 609 ('.2'"1

lkpt.. 2011 ): Finl .\ 'utio11ul Hunk<~! ( 'hicugo 1·. Sitrer. - i /\D3d I(>::!. 899 NYS2d 25(l (2"1 D-:pt.. }()I 0)). RP1\PI . 130-1-(2) provides that noti<.:e be sen t by r-:gi stered or ccrtilicd mai and h) lirst-das-.; ma il to the last "nown address of the borrower(s). ~md il'dirtl:rcnL lo the rcsidern:c that is the suhjn:t nl'the 111ort~a!.!.<.:. The 11otice is cu11siJcrcd !.!.ivcn as 11f lht.: dak it is maikd and 11ni-.t he se111 in a ... ~ "-

separate t:11Yelop.: from any other mailing or nolic-: and the notice must be in 1-l--pciint type.

The plaintilrs proof in support of its motio1 consists or: I) a copy of the promissory note dated lk1:cmbcr 15. 2005 in the sum orS~97.500.00 sign<.!d by defendant Jason Sd1lomann indorsed to I .M( · Mortgat-e C 'orporntion b) an ao.;sistanl senetat') or the ori ginal mong<1ge ll mkr American Hrokcrs ( 'onduit \\ ith atta1:hcd al longe dated De1:-:mbc.:r 15. 2005 imlorsed hy a senior vice presic.knl ol'EMC Mortgage Corporation and llHHk payable in blank: 2) a rnpy or the lkcc111ber 15. 2005 mortgag<.! in the Slllll 0 1· $297.500.00 Si!!ned by ddcndanl Jason Schlomann; ~) a copy or the assignment ol'tlw mortgage dakd .J uly 28. 2010 from Ml ~RS as nominee for /\merican 13rokers Conduit lo Wells Fargo Bank. N.!\. : 4) an affidavit from a vice president of loan doc umentation or Wdls Fargo Bank. N./\ .. attesting to the contents of the loan (business ) records maintained by the mortgage lender: anJ ) ) copies or the RP APL 90 day notices dated January I(>. 20 I.

/\t issue is\\ hether the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is surlicient lo e..;tablish its right LO

forL·t:ll)Se. The dd<:ndanl docs not contest his failure l() make payments due under the terms or the pro111issory note and mortgage agreement. Rather, the issues raised by the derendant concern wh<.:ther the prool'submittcd hy the mortgage lender provides suflici-:nl ad111issibk evidence to prnvc its cnlitkrnenl to summary judgment based upon dcfcmlant·s continuing default. plaintiffs 1.:ompliancc with !'i(\\ll1Lory pre-foreclosure notice requirements and plaintiff's standing to maintain this action

CPl.R 4518 pn)\ ides:

Business records.

{a) (icncrally. /\11y writing or record . whcth1;r in the form ol'an entry in a hook or otherwise, made as a memorandum or record or any act. transm.:t ion. occun cn1:c or even!. shall be admissible in C\.idence in proororlhat act. transaction. 01:et.rrcn1:e or event, ii' the judge finds that it was made in the regular course of' any bu..,iness and that it \\'as the regular 1:m1rsc 1.)rsud1 business to make iL at the Lim<.: of the act. 1rans,1ction. 111.:c111-rencc or L'\ L'l1l. or\\ ithin a n:asonahk time thcn.:afk1

Th1.· Cllurl ol' /\ppcals in / 1eo1>fe ,._ <;uidic<'. 8] NY2d (130. (135, <>12 NYS~d 350 ( 1994) L':--;p lai11cd that .. the essem:e n l· th1.: business r-:cords c:--;ception lo the ht:arsay ruk is that records ~'>skmatica lly made f(n Ilic l'Ol1dt1<.: t orhusiness ... ;1r-: inherently highly truS t \\l\rlh~ · hecaUSL' thl')' are mutinc rl'lkctions or day-Lo-da: 1.iperntio11s rn1d because the cntra11t 's uhligatio11 is to ha\·L· them tnllhliil a11d accura!L' li.1r purpnsc-; of'thc nmdul'I or the cntcrprist.:.'- (quoti11µ /1i·1111H' 1· ,r,:e11111•1(r. (18

~Y::!d 5<1<). 57t;_ 510 YS2d 8~1 (1 1>8<>)). 11isa11111quc hcarsa: ext:qllio11 " nee it rcpn.:~1.·nt-; hcars:1: tkl berate!: created and dirtl:rs from all ollll'r hearsa: cxcl'ptions \\ hich assuml' that dcdarations \\ h ch come \\·i1hi11 them \\t:re not made ddihcratl'I: \\1th litigation in mind. Sinel' a business record h·cping. S)Stem ma: be dcsignc<l tn med th-: hcars:i: l'.'\l:L'ption. it is impnrlalll Lo J' rt)\ idc

-~-

[* 4]

pn.:di<.:tahility in this arL'a and discn.:tion should not nnnnally be cx1.:rc ise<l to cxcludc such C\ idem:L' on grounds 1HH foreseeahk at the time the rccorJ \\~,s made {we lrotti i·. !:"state 0(1/udu111011. 2T2 1\D~d (i()O. 706 J\ YS2d 5 ~-1 (3"1 I kpl.. 2000)).

The tlll"L'L' n.nmdaliomtl rcquiremc11ts o r CPI .R 451 8(<1) arc: I) the record llll!Sl be made in thl' regu lar <.:ourst.: of busim.:ss- rdk<.:ti ng a routine, n:gularl) condu<.:tcd business a<.:t i vi t}. ncc<led and rel ied upon in the perl(> rlll~lll<.:C of busini..:ss fum:lions; !.) it lllUsl be th..:: regular cour~;c or husiness to

11wkc the n:cnnl" \i.e. tile n.:cllrd is ma<lc in accordan<.:e ,,·ith estahl ishcd proccdurv.s for the rmHillL'. sys! ·mallc making o t thc record); and :YJ Lhe rc<.:ord 1nust ila\c h...:cn 111ctdl...'. .tl the tinh.' 11f'1hc a1.:l. lransactio11. occurn.:ncc ur 1.:\'cnl. or within a reasonublc time thcrealkr. assuring that the t\.:colkction is fa irly accurate and the cntri cs routind) ma<lc (se" /'eo1>le i-. Ke1111e((1 1

• \llflrn a pp. 579-580)). The ··mere tiling ol papers received from other entities. cwll if such papers arc retained in the regular course or business. is illsu nic icnl Lo qua Ii t)· the <loc .. m1ents as business records ... (l'eople i -. ( 'mtsle.1. 8(> NY2d 81, 90, (129 NYS2d <>92 ( 1995)). The rewn.ls will be admissiblc .. if the rccipknl can cstal1lish personal knowledge or1he makc:r·s business practiccs and procedures. or that the records provided by the maker were incorporated into the recipient's own rc.:cords or routinely rclied upon hy the n.:<.:ipient in its husincss." (.\'fate <?{1\ e1r fork''· I 58111 Street & Rii'erside IJrfre I /oll.\i11g ('01111}((11_1'. Inc .. I OO/\D3d 1293. 12%. 956 NYS2d 196(2012): teem: denied 20 NY3d 858(2013 ); we also l'h·irme Ff ie1111e Medical ( 'are. P. C. \'. Coun11:1'- Jl'ide ln.rnrance Company. 25 N Y3d 4 98. 14 NYS3d 283 (20 IS); /)e11/schc: /Jank Nmionuf 1i·11st Co. l'. 1\tfonicu. 131 /\D3d Ti7. 15 NYS3d (3'J

lkpt.. :WIS): l'eople l'. !Ji,\'afro. 284 J\D2d 547, 727 NYS2d 146 C:~"J Dept.. 2001 ); ,\faller of" Camtlras '" <il~ICO. 79 J\[)Jd 864. 914 NYS2d 199 (2'..: Dept.. 2010) ). In this regard. with respect lo mortgage foreclosures. a loan servicct" s employee may lesti fy on hchal r or tht..: mortgage kndcr and a rqm:scntativc ol'an assignee ol'thc original lender can rely upon business records of the original lender 10 establish its claims for n:covery or amounts due from the borrowers provided the assigncc/plaimi IT cstabl ishcs that it incorporated the original records into its O \\ n records and relied upon thos<.: records in the regular course of business (/.uml111urk Cu1>itu/ /111'. Inc. 1·. U -Slwn ll'u11g 9-l AD3d 418. 94 I 1 YS2<l 14-l (I ' 1 Dept.. 2012 ): /'or(/olio Rc:cm·e1:1 · .·/.\·sodutes. l.i.C. '" I.all. 127 J\ f)Jd 5 7(>. 8 N YSJd 101 ( l '1 Dept.. 201) ): ,\ /erril/ !.ynch !311si11C'SS Fi11a11cial Sc11Tin1s. !11c. '" hutaros Constructio11. Inc.. 30 /\DJd 336. 819 IYS2d 223 ( 1'1 Dept.. 2006)).

Tht: statute (CPI .R 4518) dearly docs not require a person to have persona knowledge or each and every t:ntrv con1ai11eJ in a business record. particularly in this casc. \\ IK·rc thnc is a hu!-inl'ss n.:la1io11ship bt:l\\.l'l'll mortgage sen icing L'nlitics responsible for en tering anti maintai 11ing an:uratc rl'cords, nnd \\here till' t.:lltTL'nt scn·i<.:L'r has im:orporall:d and rdiL·d .ipon the husi!1L'SS l'l'l'Ortls it 111ai11lains in its rqwlar COlll'Sl' ol' business (S<'<' ( 'itihw1k N.. /. I' . . / hru/l/S 1-l-I 1\1 )Jd 121 ~. -W \I YS3d (153 (3"1 Dept.. 20 I()): I /.\'/JC Hc111k l S. I .\ '. I r. Suge. I 12 1\ l)Jd I 12(1. 1>77 N YS~d ..f-l(i (~·.J I kpt.. 20 I)): l.<111</111urk ( 'u11itol /111'. Inc. l '. I.I-Slum lf·ung Sll/JJ'a. )). 1\ s the Appcllatc I )i\'isio11. SL·1.:011d J)~panment rcn·ntl} slated in< 'itir,rn111> '" l\ope/011it::. l-l7 J\ DJd 101-l. -II{ NY~.ld '.223 (2"" Dep!., 201 7): ... I here is llO rcquircrni..:lll lhal a plainli rr in a l'orL't:hisurc Ut.:tioll rely ()fl :1 p:1rti<.:u l:1r !'Cl

ol ')usincss rern .. ds to establish a pri111a focie casl:. so long a'\ lhc plai111iff ..,atisfic!- 11lc admissihil ity requirements or ( ' Pl .R 45 I 8(a) and the records thl:mseh·es actually evi1ll'L' the l:tch f'or '' hich the) ;m· rL'licd upon ... I kcisions i1Hcrprc1in!! CPI.I{ -l5 18 arL' co11sistl'nl ((>the extent Ll ·a1 the thr<.:L' li H11ltbtill11<1I rl'qu1n.:lllL'llls: I l that the nX\)rd l1c 11wtk in till· 1\·gui<ir coursL' u 1.iius 11~·ss. : , ih.11 iii., i11 the rq.!ular courSL' of husi11c'>" lo rnakl' thL record: and 3 l that thi..: rcclird must he 111adl' al or llL':tr the ti 1llL' 1hc lra11s:ict io11 m·curred. if lkt n1111strated. 111al-.c lhl' l"L'L't)rds :1dmissib c silll'L' '>t1L'l1 rL·cnrds an.· considered lrus1worth> and reliable. \lorem·e r. tile languag.L' conta ined in the stall IL' SjK'l'ilically

_.:;_

[* 5]

autliori1.es the mun discretion to d<.:tcrmine ad111issibility hy staling .. (/'rlie j11dgeji11ds .. that the three: foundatirn~al rc4uin:ments arc satisfied the: e\ idcncc shall be admi5sible.

With resp1..·ct to the issue tlr sl<tnding. paragraph 6 or pbinti !rs , ·ice prcsidcn1·s aflid:I\ it stat1.·' the fi1llowrng·

.. 6. Wells Fargo Bank. N.1\. is in poss<.:ssion or the Prom is~or) uh.:. The >rnmissor~

Nute \\'a:- indorsc<l in bla11k. I conlirm that \\'ells Fargo Bank. N.i\. had poss<.:ssion of the Prornissnry Not<: on June 22. 2u()(). I confi1111 that Wdls Fargo l3a11k. 1\.1\. had possession or the Promissory Nok on or be for<.: .June J. 20 I I. the dale.; thi s actio11 was <.:onm1em:cd ...

·1 his sworn stutement provides relevant. admissible evidence 10 establish plaintiffs standing to maintain this foreclosure a<..:tion since submission of an affidavit from the mortgagl! lender al tcsti11g lO plaintiffs possession or the llO[e al or prior [O the Clll11111<.:11C<.:Jl1Cl1t or the action 's surficicnt \(l establish Lhc hank ·s standing (see 11.\8(' /Jw1k ll.\:,1. .\ '.A. 1·. Armijos. 151 /\D3d 943. 2017 WL 2662557 (2'"1 Dept.. .2017): ( 'e111rul /lfortguge ( 'o. r. J),n•is. 149 /\D3d 898. 53 NYS3d 325 (2'h1

Dept. , 2017): Wells Fargo /Junk. Nil. ''· Ostiguy. 127 /\D3d 1375, 8 YS3<l 669 (1"1 lkpL 2015): U..<1'. Bank. :\l..·1. 1·. Cnc. 14 7 /\ DJd l I 03, 4 7 NY S3d 459 (2"'1 Dept.. 2017 )). ;\ny ti lt:gcd issues surrounding th<.: mortgage assignment arc irrekvan1 in lhis case concerning the issue or standing sinc.:c 1he plaintiff has established possession or a duly in<lorscd promissory note with allongc indorsed in blank prior to commencing this action (FNMA''· }'okap11r:: II, /11c .. 141/\D3d506. 35 NYS3d 236 (2"'1 Dept., 2016): Deut.w:he Bank .Notional 'fi-11.,·1 Co. ''- /,eigh. 1:'7 J\I >ld 841. 28 NYS3d 8() <2'111 Dept .. 2016)). Defendant's conLcntion that the mortgage s<.:rvicer's vic.:e president's affidavit constitulcd inadmissible h1.:arsay beta use she <lid nol have personal kno\\' <:<lge of the plaintiff's rccorc.J-k~eping practices and procedures is without merit (CPI ,R 4518;. ·ee Wells Fargo Ba11k. N. /1. 1· 'f'homus. 150 /\l)3d 1312. 52 NYS3<l 894 (2"J Dept.. 20 17): ( 'iligro1111 v. J-.'opelo1rif'::. supra. ): ll'e/ls Forgo !Jank. N:I. 1·. Galla,!!,her. 137 AD3d 898. 28 NYS3J 84 (2"'1 Dcpt.. 2016)).

With rcspet:t to the issue or the de fendant Schlornann. s defoult in making payment~. paragrnph 7 orplaintifrs vice president·s a ffo.lavit slates the fo llowing:

.. 7. Thcrl' is i11 fact a dcfoull under lhc.: terms and conditions or the Promis~ory ol<.: and '.\ lorlgage. because th<.: January I. 201 I paymcnl and subsequent payments \\.'l'rc not lllude:·

In order 10 e.swblish prima fi1eic <.:n1i1lcme111 to judgment as a matter ol' la\\ in a fo1cc.:losurc action. the plaintiff must submit the nwrlg<tgc. the unpaid nok' and admissibk e,·idencc ll shcm lkfoult (Sl'l'

1'<11111_1·,\lo« l/oldi11g.,, 111£" I'. 'f (>111w1elli. 139 1\D3d (188. 32 NYS3d 18112'~1 Dcpl.. 20 1(1): .\'orth . !mcrirn11 ,\'u1·i11gs Hunk 1·. F.\IJ{).\i/o-( 'onw. l-+l t\1)3d 70(>. 35 NY~3d ·l<) J (211

.i Dept.. 2016): ll"mhi11,~1011 .\l11111ul /1u11k 1· . . \ 'chenk 112 AD'hl (>f 5. 975 NYS2d <>02 (2'"1 DcpL .:.i>l 1)). Plaint iff has prn,·ided admissible C\ idcnc.:e in the fi.mn or a copy 1>1' the note and mortgage. md an affoJa, it attc:-.tinµ tu Lhc ckfi.:11da11t"s 11ndispu11..·d tlcfoull in 111aki11!l ti111ely mortµagc payments suffo.:it:nl 111

sus1:11n its burden ll> prove di:k11da111 has dclaultcd under the tcrrns ol the panics <1,t.!.re~mcnt b) 1;1iling to make: li111el~ payments since January I . ~() l I (CPI .R 4518: sC'e ll'ells Furgo Honk. 1\ .. 1. i­

llwmus. \/ffWll: ( 'iti~/'011/J ,., f.:011t•lmrit::. . . \ /ljJrU. )). According.I). and in the absc.:n.:<.: o r <lily proof" lo rai:-.e an is'illl' uf l':1cl concerning her continuing. dcfault. plaintitrs application for partia l summar:i

[* 6]

judgment against the dckncJant basccJ upon her breach ol' the mortgage agreement nnd promissor: IHHI.'. must be granted.

With respet.:t to sc r,·ice ol' the pre-fon:closun.: mortgaµc RP /\Pl. 1304 90-da) notices. the proof requin:d to prov<.'. strict compliance with the statute cun be satisfied: I) by plaintilfs -;uhmission or an anidm·i l 0 r Sf..'.r\'ICC or the notices (see ( 'it ii\lortguge. Inc. \'. l'appus. 14 7 /\ IB<l 1>00. -t7 NY. 3<l 415 (2 11

..i lkpt.. ::w17): Bunk <~/Ae11' fork .\le/Ion\'. :lc1ui110. n I 1\DJd 1186. 16 N YS3d 770 ( 2"'1 Dl.!pL 20 l 5 ); I )eulschi! !Junk ,\lat iOJwl h11sl Co. \· . . ~jJwws. I 02 /\D3d 909. 961

YS2d 200 (2"J Dept.. 20 I J )); or 2) hy plaintiffs submission of suJfo.:ienl proof to t:~luhlish .. ptuur of mailing by tht: post olfo:l! .. (Citi1\lortgu,1!,e, Inc. 1·. 1>uppus. s11pro pg. 901: see 11'<1/s Fargo !Jank. N.1. \'. 'fr11pie1, I SO /\D:ld I 049. 55 NYS3d 134 (2 '"1 DcpL 2017)). Once either method is established a presumption of receipt arises (see l 'i\'iane Die1111<' Medical Care. J>. ( ,._ Co111111:1·-ll'idc: ln.rnrw1ce Co., .rnpru. : Flllgswr Hunk\'. A!endo:;a, 139 /\D3d 898, 32 NYSJd 278 :?.110 Dt:pt., 2016): l?esidenlial f !olding Corp. \'. Sco!!.wlale /11s11rance Co., 286 /\D2d 679. 729 NYS2d 7(>6 (2110 Dept., 2001 )).

While the business records exception to the hearsay rule provides a ITI<.'.chanism to establish the 1<.1undation for the proof necessary to prove compliance. recent appellate ruli ngs have required that th<.'. ~1 flidavit submitted by the mortgage lender's rcpresentati vc set forth his/her personal fomiliarity with the mailing practices and procedures of the business entity rt:sponsiblc for doing the actual mailing (CitiJ\!orlgage. Inc. \'. Pappas. s11pra. : Wells Fargo Blink. NA. \'. 7i upia. supra.: lnn:stors S({l'ings !Jank v. 5·,'a/crs. 152 /\D3d 752, 2017 WL 316 1068 (2™1 Dept., 2017); .l/>i\!or,1!,WI ( 'lw.W! Hank\'. l\111c/i. 142 /\D3d 53(1, 36 NYS3d 235 (2"J Dept.. 2016)). In this ca..;c, there is insufficient evidence to prove that mailing by certified and lirst class mail was done by the post o rtke, since plaintiff has foibJ to submit either an aflidavit of sf..'.rvicf..'. by mailing or to submit an anidavit from a rc;prcsentative personally fam iliar with the mailing practicf..'.s used by Wdls Fargo or LO suhmit sulfo:ienl documentary t:vidcnec or proof or mailing by the post ol'licc. Jn this case. the only proor or mailing bcyon<l the affidavit submitted by the bank rcprl'.sentativf..'. were copies or th<.'. 1304 notict: which is in and of itselr insufficient to establish strict compliance. Ba~f..'.d upon these circumstances. plaintiff has foiled to tkmonstralc its cntitlcmf..'.nt to summary j udgment on the issue or compliance with the; rt:quircmcnts of'RP/\PL 1304 and a significant issue orfoct rf..'.niains concern inµ the notice; rcquircmenl (( 'itihank. NA. r. Wood. 150 /\ D3d 813, 2017 WL I 903218 (211

d

Dept.. 2017): Al & 1' Rank 1· . .Joseph. 152 Af)3d 579, 2017 WL 29(> 1421 (2'"' Dept.. 2017)).

1\ccordinµly. the dclendant's cross motion s<.'.cking dismissal or plaintiff's complaint is denied. Plaintiffs motion seeking summary j udgment is grm11cd solely to the extf..'.nt indicated hcr~:inahovc. /\ conli:rcncc shal l be held for the purpose or c;ither scheduling a limited issue trial pursuant to ('P l.R 321 ~(µ). or a briefing sche<lulc for submission or llllOthcr Slllllll1ary jud~ment 11101 ion.

D:ttl·d: ScptcmlK-r 1 I . .2017 HON. HOWARD H. HECKMAN. JR.

.r .s.c.

[* 7]