HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Valentin |
2008 NY Slip Op 50164(U) [18 Misc 3d 1123(A)] |
Decided on January 30, 2008 |
Supreme Court, Kings County |
Schack, J. |
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
HSBC Bank USA,
N.A., AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED NOTEHOLDERS OF
RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2005-3, RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY
LOAN ASSET-BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2005-3, , Plaintiff,
against Candida Valentin, CANDIDE RUIZ, et. al., Defendants. |
Plaintiff's application, upon the default of all defendants, for an order of reference, for the
premises located at 572 Riverdale Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3838, Lot 39, County of
Kings) is denied without prejudice. The "affidavit of merit" submitted in support of this
application for a default judgment is not by an officer of the plaintiff or someone with a power of
attorney from the plaintiff. Leave is granted to plaintiff,
BANK USA, N.A., AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED
NOTEHOLDERS OF RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2005-3,
RENAISSANCE HOME [*2]EQUITY LOAN ASSET-BACKED
NOTES, SERIES 2005-3
(HSBC),
Further, according to plaintiff's application, the default of defendants Valentin and Ruiz began with the nonpayment of principal and interest due on January 1, 2007. Yet, four months later, plaintiff HSBC was willing to take an assignment of the instant nonperforming loan. The Court wonders why HSBC would purchase a nonperforming loan, four months in arrears?
Additionally, plaintiff HSBC must address a third matter if it renews its application for an order of reference. In the instant action, as noted above, Scott Anderson, as Vice President of MERS, assigned the instant mortgage to HSBC on May 1, 2007. Doris Chapman, the Notary Public, stated that on May 1, 2007, "personally appeared Scott Anderson, of1661 Worthington Road, Suite 100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409." In HSBC Bank, N.A. v Cherry, at 3, I observed that: [*3]
Scott Anderson, in his affidavit, executed on June 15, 2007, states
he is Vice President of OCWEN. Yet, the June 13, 2007 assignment
from MERS to HSBC is signed by the same Scott Anderson as
Vice President of MERS. Did Mr. Anderson change his employer
between June 13, 2007 and June 15, 2007. The Court is concerned
that there may be fraud on the part of HSBC, or at least malfeasance.
Before granting an application for an order of reference, the Court
requires an affidavit from Mr. Anderson describing his employment
history for the past three years.
Lastly, the court notes that Scott Anderson, in the MERS to
HSBC assignment gave his address as Suite 100.
address listed for HSBC in the assignment. In a foreclosure action
that Idecided on May 11, 2007 (Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Company
v Castellanos, 15 Misc 3d 1134[A]), Deutsche Bank assigned the
mortgage to MTGLQ Investors, L.P. I noted, at 4-5, that MTGLQ
Investors, L.P.:
According to Exhibit 21.1 of the November 25, 2006 Goldman
Sachs 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission . . .
is a "significant subsidiary" of Goldman Sachs. . . . [T]he January 19,
2007 assignment has the same address for both the assignor Deutsche
Bank and the assignee MTGLQ Investors, L.P., at 1661 Worthington
Road, Suite 100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409. The Court will not
speculate about why two major financial behemoths, Deutsche Bank
and Goldman Sachs share space in a West Palm Beach, Florida office
suite
In the instant action, with HSBC, OCWEN and MERS, joining
with Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs at Suite 100, the Court is now
concerned as to why so many financial goliaths are in the same space.
The Court ponders if Suite 100 is the size of Madison Square Garden to
house all of these financial behemoths or if there is a more nefarious
reason for this corporate togetherness. If HSBC seeks to renew its
application for an order to reference, the Court needs to know, in the
form of an affidavit, why Suite 100 is such a popular venue for these
corporations.
Real Property Actions
and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) § 1321 allows the Court in a foreclosure action, upon the
default of the defendant or defendant's admission of mortgage payment arrears, to appoint a
referee "to compute the amount due to the plaintiff." In the instant action, plaintiff's application
for an order of reference is a preliminary step to obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and
sale. (Home Sav. Of Am., F.A. v Gkanios, 230 AD2d 770 [2d Dept 1996]).
shall file proof of service of the summons and the complaint, or
a summons and notice served pursuant to subdivision (b) of rule
305 or subdivision (a) of rule 316 of this chapter, and proof of
the facts constituting the claim, the default and the amount due
by affidavit made by the party . . . Where a verified complaint has
been served, it may be used as the affidavit of the facts constituting
the claim and the amount due; in such case, an affidavit as to the
default shall be made by the party or the party's attorney. [Emphasis
added].
Plaintiff has failed to submit "proof of the facts" in "an affidavit made by the
party." The affidavit is submitted by Jessica Dybas, "a Foreclosure Facilitator of OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC, servicing agent and attorney in fact to the holder of the bond and mortgage
sought to be foreclosed herein." There must be an affidavit by an officer of HSBC or a servicing
agent, possessing a
Also, the instant application upon defendants' default must be denied because even
though it contains a verified complaint, the attorney's verification is insufficient to
meet the requirements of CPLR § 3215 (f). The Court, in Mullins v Di Lorenzo,
199 AD2d 218 [1st Dept 1993], instructed that "a complaint verified by counsel amounts to no
more than an attorney's affidavit and is therefore insufficient to support entry of judgment
pursuant to CPLR 3215." Citing Mullins v Di Lorenzo, the Court, in Feffer v
Malpeso, 210 AD2d 60, 61 [1st Dept 1994], held that a complaint with not more than an
attorney's affidavit, for purposes of entering a default judgment "was erroneous and must be
deemed a nullity." Professor David Siegel, in his Practice Commentaries (McKinney's Cons
Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3215: 16) explains that Mullins v Di Lorenzo
is in point here. Perhaps the verified complaint can do service as
an affidavit for various purposes within the litigation while the contest
is on . . . but it will not suffice to put an end to the contest with as
drastic a step as a default at the outset. It must be kept in mind that
even an outright "affidavit" by the plaintiff's attorney on the merits
of the case— except in the relatively rare circumstances in which the
attorney happens to have first-hand knowledge of the facts—lacks
probative force and is usually deemed inadequate by the courts to
establish the merits. A fortiori, a verified pleading tendered as proof
of the merits would also lack probative force when the verification is
the attorney's. [Emphasis added]
In Blam v Netcher,
17 AD3d 495, 496 [2d Dept 2005], the Court reversed a default
judgment granted in Supreme Court, Nassau County, holding that:
In support of her motion for leave to enter judgment against
[*5]
the defendant upon her default in answering, the plaintiff failed to
proffer either an affidavit of the facts or a complaint verified by a
party with personal knowledge of the facts (see CPLR 3215 (f):
Goodman v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. 2 AD3d 581
[2d Dept 2003]; Drake v Drake, 296 AD2d 566 [2d Dept 2002];
Parratta v McAllister, 283 AD2d 625 [2d Dept 2001]). Accordingly,
the plaintiff's motion should have been denied, with leave to renew
on proper papers (see Henriquez v Purins, 245 AD2d 337, 338
[2d Dept 1997]).
(See Hazim v Winter, 234 AD2d 422 [2d Dept 1996]; Finnegan v
Sheahan, 269 AD2d 491 [2d Dept 2000]; De Vivo v Spargo, 287 AD2d 535 [2d
Dept 2001]; Peniston v Epstein, 10
AD3d 450 [2d Dept 2004]; Taebong Choi v JKS Dry Cleaning Eqip. Corp., 15 AD3d 566 [2d
Dept 2005]; Matone v Sycamore Realty
Corp., 31 AD3d 721 [2d Dept 2006]; Crimmins v Sagona Landscaping, Ltd., 33 AD3d 580 [2d Dept
2006]).
Therefore, the instant application for an order of reference is denied without prejudice, with
leave to renew. The Court will grant plaintiff HSBC an order of reference when it presents: an
affidavit by either an officer of HSBC or someone with a valid power of attorney from HSBC,
possessing personal knowledge of the facts; an affidavit from Scott Anderson clarifying his
employment history for the past three years and what corporation he serves as an officer; and, an
affidavit by an officer of HSBC explaining why HSBC would purchase a nonperforming loan
from Delta Funding Corporation, and why HSBC, OCWEN, MERS, Deutsche Bank and
Goldman Sachs all share office space in Suite 100.
ORDERED, that the application of plaintiff,
ORDERED, that leave is granted to plaintiff,
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
ENTER
___________________________
HON. ARTHUR M. SCHACK
J. S. C.