Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Starr
| Citation | 104 N.Y.S.3d 643,173 A.D.3d 836 |
| Decision Date | 12 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | 2017–00692,Index No. 13832/12 |
| Parties | DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etc., Respondent, v. Donna M. STARR, etc., Appellant, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Young Law Group, PLLC, Bohemia, N.Y. (Ivan E. Young and Justin Pane of counsel), for appellant.
Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jason J. Oliveri and Schuyler B. Kraus of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Donna M. Starr appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Thomas A. Adams, J.), dated October 11, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant, to strike her answer, and for an order of reference, and denied that branch of her cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her on the ground that the plaintiff failed to comply with RPAPL 1304 and 1306.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Donna M. Starr, to strike her answer, and for an order of reference, and substituting therefor a provision denying those branches of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendant Donna M. Starr payable by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, the defendant Donna M. Starr (hereinafter the defendant), to foreclose a mortgage encumbering residential real property. The defendant answered. In June 2016, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint, to strike the defendant's answer, and for an order of reference. The defendant cross-moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her on the ground that the plaintiff failed to comply with RPAPL 1304 and 1306. In an order dated October 11, 2016, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion, denied the defendant's cross motion, and appointed a referee to compute the amount due under the loan. The defendant appeals.
The plaintiff demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by producing the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of the default (see CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Guillermo, 143 A.D.3d 852, 39 N.Y.S.3d 86 ). However, in opposition, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff strictly complied with RPAPL 1304. "[P]roper service of [a] RPAPL 1304 notice on the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and the plaintiff has the burden of establishing satisfaction of this condition" ( Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Weisblum, 85 A.D.3d 95, 106, 923 N.Y.S.2d 609 ). Failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 is a defense that may be raised at any time (see Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Jambelli, 140 A.D.3d 829, 830, 32 N.Y.S.3d 625 ; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Carey, 137 A.D.3d 894, 896, 28 N.Y.S.3d 68 ; Citimortgage, Inc. v. Espinal, 134 A.D.3d 876, 879, 23 N.Y.S.3d 251 ; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Weisblum, 85 A.D.3d at 107, 923 N.Y.S.2d 609 ). Thus, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendant did not improperly assert the defense for the first time in opposition to the plaintiff's motion (see Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Jambelli, 140 A.D.3d at 830, 32 N.Y.S.3d 625 ; Citimortgage, Inc. v. Espinal, 134 A.D.3d at 879–880, 23 N.Y.S.3d 251 ). The plaintiff failed to establish that it was not required to comply with RPAPL 1304 and also failed to establish its compliance with the statute. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant, to strike her answer, and for an order of reference. In light of our determination, we need not decide whether the plaintiff established, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1306 prior to commencing the action.
However, we agree with the Supreme Court's denial of that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
H & R Block Bank, FSB v. Liles
...881, 882, 114 N.Y.S.3d 392 ; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Akanda, 177 A.D.3d 718, 720, 111 N.Y.S.3d 642 ; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Starr, 173 A.D.3d 836, 837, 104 N.Y.S.3d 643 ; Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Weber, 169 A.D.3d 981, 985, 94 N.Y.S.3d 582 ). Furthermore, in determining whether......
-
Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Matles
...1112, 1114, 104 N.Y.S.3d 144 ), and simply pointed to claimed deficiencies in Aurora's evidence (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Starr, 173 A.D.3d 836, 838, 104 N.Y.S.3d 643 ). Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination, upon renewal, to deny the defendant's cross mot......
-
JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Gold
...also failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not comply with RPAPL 1306 (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Starr, 173 A.D.3d 836, 838, 104 N.Y.S.3d 643 ). Accordingly, the defendants' cross motion was properly denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's op......
-
Solis v. Aguilar
...denied that branch the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Starr, 173 A.D.3d 836, 838, 104 N.Y.S.3d 643 ; Cincotta v. City of New York, 292 A.D.2d 558, 559, 739 N.Y.S.2d 594 ).The defendants’ remaining contentions,......