JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Butler

Decision Date10 June 2015
Docket Number2013-07136
Citation12 N.Y.S.3d 145,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04812,129 A.D.3d 777
PartiesJP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., appellant, v. Frederick W. BUTLER, respondent, et al., defendants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, New York, N.Y. (Lisa J. Fried, Allison J. Schoenthal, Chava Brandriss, and Sean Marotta of counsel), for appellant.

Yolande I. Nicholson, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), entered July 10, 2013, as (a) granted those branches of the motion of the defendant Frederick D. Butler which were (i) pursuant to CPLR 2606 for the payment out of court of the sum of $490,000, held on deposit by the Kings County Clerk, to the extent of directing a payment to him in the sum of $55,617.11, and (ii) pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 for the imposition of sanctions against the plaintiff and/or its attorneys to the extent of directing a hearing to determine whether sanctions should be imposed, and (b) denied its cross motion pursuant to CPLR 2606 for the payment out of court of the sum of $490,000, held on deposit by the Kings County Clerk, and directed a hearing to determine whether it was entitled to the balance of the sum held on deposit by the Kings County Clerk. By decision and order on motion dated August 1, 2013, this Court stayed enforcement of so much of the order as directed the payment of the sum of $55,617.11 to the defendant Frederick D. Butler pending hearing and determination of the appeal.

ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from so much of the order as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Frederick D. Butler which was pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 for the imposition of sanctions against the plaintiff and/or its attorneys to the extent of directing a hearing to determine whether sanctions should be imposed is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701[c] ); and it is further,

ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from so much of the order as directed a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to the payment out of court of the balance of the sum held on deposit by the Kings County Clerk is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701[c] ); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, (1) by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the motion of the defendant Frederick W. Butler which was pursuant to CPLR 2606 for the payment out of court in the sum of $490,000, held on deposit by the Kings County Clerk, to the extent of directing a payment to him in the sum of $55,617.11, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion, (2) by deleting the provision thereof denying the plaintiff's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 2606 for the payment out of court of the sum of $490,000, held on deposit by the Kings County Clerk, and directing a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to the balance of the sum held on deposit by the Kings County Clerk, and substituting therefor a provision granting the plaintiff's cross motion to the extent of awarding the sum of $434,382.89 to the plaintiff, to be paid out of court from the sum held on deposit by the Kings County Clerk, and (3) by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the motion of the defendant Frederick W. Butler which was pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 for the imposition of sanctions against the plaintiff and/or its attorneys to the extent of directing a hearing to determine whether sanctions should be imposed, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings before a different Justice, including a hearing with respect to the amount of interest and any additional sums to be awarded to the plaintiff, and thereafter the entry of an appropriate judgment.

The defendant Frederick W. Butler executed a note promising to repay a loan in the sum of $450,000, which was secured by a mortgage encumbering certain real property that he owned in Brooklyn. By summons and complaint filed on January 20, 2010, the plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose on the mortgage, alleging that Butler had defaulted under the terms of the mortgage and note. Butler interposed an answer dated February 22, 2010, in which he asserted a general denial of the allegations contained in the complaint. Butler did not allege that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence this action or otherwise assert an affirmative defense or counterclaim.

After the parties were unable to reach a settlement during CPLR 3408 settlement conferences, Butler sold the subject premises and, as directed by the Supreme Court, placed on deposit with the Kings County Clerk the sum of $490,000, which sum was sufficient to pay off the outstanding balance due on the loan.

Thereafter, Butler moved, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not have standing to commence this action. He also moved pursuant to CPLR 2606 for the payment to him out of court of the sum of $490,000, representing the balance of the proceeds of the sale, which was held on deposit by the Kings County Clerk, and pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 for the imposition of sanctions against the plaintiff and/or its attorneys. The plaintiff cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 2606 for the payment out of court of the $490,000 held on deposit with the Kings County Clerk.

In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court determined that the plaintiff failed to negotiate in good faith during settlement conferences conducted pursuant to CPLR 3408, based, in part, upon the court's finding that the plaintiff had misrepresented its status, i.e., it did not have standing to maintain the action. The court “tailored an equitable remedy” by granting that branch of Butler's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 2606 to the extent of directing the payment to Butler, from the $490,000 on deposit with the Kings County Clerk, the sum of $55,617.11, which represented the interest that had accrued on the loan. The court also granted that branch of Butler's motion which was pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 for the imposition of sanctions against the plaintiff and/or its attorneys to the extent of directing a hearing to determine “whether the bad faith by [the plaintiff] and its counsel is frivolous conduct,” and thus, whether sanctions should be imposed. The court denied the plaintiff's cross motion...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Nelson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 23, 2019
    ...owned the note at the time the action was commenced) as an essential element of the cause of action (see JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Butler, 129 A.D.3d 777, 780, 12 N.Y.S.3d 145 ; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Islar, 122 A.D.3d 566, 567, 996 N.Y.S.2d 130 ). Rather, it is only where the......
  • BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP v. Bertram
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • January 7, 2016
    ...is not an element of his or her claim (see id., at 42 A.D.3d 250, 837 N.Y.S.2d 247 ; see also JP Morgan Chase Bank, Natl. Ass'n v. Butler, 129 A.D.3d 777, 12 N.Y.S.3d 145 [2d Dept.2015] ; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Islar, 122 A.D.3d 566, 996 N.Y.S.2d 130, supra; Midfirst Bank v. Agho,......
  • Filan v. Dellaria
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 23, 2016
    ...[a][3]; [e]; Matter of Fossella v. Dinkins, 66 N.Y.2d 162, 167–168, 495 N.Y.S.2d 352, 485 N.E.2d 1017 ; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Butler, 129 A.D.3d 777, 780, 12 N.Y.S.3d 145 ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Erobobo, 127 A.D.3d 1176, 1177–1178, 9 N.Y.S.3d 312 ), Dellaria did not waive the de......
  • PNC Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Campbell
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • September 28, 2016
    ...on this issue (see CPLR 3408 ; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Chirinkin, 135 A.D.3d 676, 24 N.Y.S.3d 119 ; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Butler, 129 A.D.3d 777, 12 N.Y.S.3d 145 ; Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. Cappelli, 120 A.D.3d 621, 990 N.Y.S.2d 856 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT