Bank of New York Mellon v. Hrostek
| Decision Date | 28 January 2020 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | The Bank of New York Mellon fka The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificate-Holders of CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2007-2CB, Mortgage Pass-through Certificates, Series 2007-2CB v. Lucille Hrostek et al. |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Moran, John W., J.T.R.
The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment dated June 10 2019. Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 17-45(c) "... the moving party shall not claim the motion for summary judgment to the short calendar less than forty-five days after the filing of the motion for summary judgment," see comments to § 17-45 to provide the parties with sufficient time to respond to the motion.
Thereafter the defendant Lucille Hrostek filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment dated July 19, 2019 requesting an additional 60 days. This motion was granted by the court on August 5 2019 and the defendant Lucille Hrostek was afforded an additional 60 days to respond to the motion for summary judgment, thus providing to the defendant Lucille Hrostek until October 5, 2019 the opportunity to respond to the plaintiff motion for summary judgment. This court notes the granting of the defendant Lucille Hrostek’s motion for extension of time was marked FINAL.
The motion for summary judgment was scheduled on short calendar on October 7, 2019, two days after the defendant Lucille Hrostek’s opportunity to respond to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment had expired and 110 days after the plaintiff filed the motion for summary judgment.
On October 7, 2019 the court entertained the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, yet by this time and date, the defendant, Lucille Hrostek, had yet to file any opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 17-45(b) and 17-46.
The court finds that the plaintiff has complied with Connecticut Practice Book § 17-44 and 17-45(a) and that all its papers and filings are in perfect order and compliance.
In that the defendant Lucille Hrostek has failed to file any opposition to the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and therefore grants said motion.
The defendant Lucille Hrostek has filed an answer dated May 24, 2017 consisting of 38 "Affirmative Defenses" and 2 Counterclaims.
The court declines to consider these 38 "Affirmative Defenses" as opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as they do not comply with Connecticut Practice Book § 17-45(b) and 17-46, and are nothing more than a "shot gun" recited perhaps off the "google" network.
However the court remarks as follows:
The Affirmative Defenses are not in affidavit form and are not authenticated. The Affirmative Defenses lack specificity and supporting facts. They are mere conclusion and speculative.
Many are irrelevant and immaterial and contrary to established case law.
Furthermore, they do not attack the making, validity or enforcement of the note or...
To continue reading
Request your trial