Further, plaintiff must address a second matter if it renews its application for an order of reference upon compliance with CPLR § 3215 (f). In the instant action, as noted above, Victor F. Parisi, in his affidavit, dated December 14, 2007, states he is Vice President of EQUITY ONE. Yet, the September 28, 2007 assignment from MERS as nominee for PEOPLE'S CHOICE to HSBC is signed by the same Victor F. Parisi, as Vice President of MERS. In my November 20, 2007 decision and order in HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR NOMURA HOME EQUITY LOAN, INC. ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-FM2 v SANDOVAL, Index Number 8758/07, the same Victor F. Parisi assigned the underlying mortgage and note as Vice President of MERS to HSBC on March 13, 2007, and then signed the affidavit of merit as Vice President of EQUITY ONE, authorized servicer for HSBC, the next day, March 14, 2007. Did Mr. Parisi change his employment from March 13, 2007 to March 14, 2007, and again from September 28, 2007 to December 14, 2007? The Court is concerned that Mr. Parisi might be engaged in a subterfuge, wearing various corporate hats. Before granting an application for an order of reference, the Court requires an affidavit from Mr. Parisi describing his employment history for the past three years.

Also, while MERS served as nominee for PEOPLE'S CHOICE, the mortgage servicer for the PERBOO mortgage was POPULAR MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC. [POPULAR], [exhibit B of application - July 24 default letter to PERBOO], whose address is 121 Woodcrest Road, Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003. The MERS as nominee for PEOPLE'S CHOICE to [*3]HSBC assignment lists HSBC's address as 121 Woodcrest Road, Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003. The instant verified complaint [part of exhibit B of application] states that EQUITY ONE'S address is 121 Woodcrest Road, Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003. How convenient to have the assignor's servicer, the assignee's servicer and the assignee all at the same address. This makes for one-stop shopping! The Court needs to know what corporate chicanery is being played at 121 Woodcrest Road, Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003. Is the building large enough to house POPULAR, EQUITY ONE, MERS and HSBC under the same roof? Is there enough closet space to store Mr. Parisi's various corporate hats?

Last, the verified complaint notes, in ¶ 6, that defendant PERBOO defaulted with her February 1, 2007 principal and interest payment. The first sentence in the July 24, 2007-POPULAR default letter to defendant PERBOO states "[p]lease be advised that your account is presently in default." On September 28, 2007, 240 days after the instant mortgage loan ceased to perform, and 72 days subsequent to the POPULAR default letter to PERBOO, plaintiff HSBC accepted the assignment of the instant nonperforming loan from MERS as nominee for PEOPLE'S CHOICE. The Court needs a satisfactory explanation of why HSBC, whose directors have a fiduciary responsibility to HSBC's shareholders, purchased a nonperforming loan from MERS as nominee for PEOPLE'S CHOICE, in an affidavit by an officer of HSBC.

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 of facts" is submitted by Victor F. Parisi, "Vice-President of, EQUITY ONE, INC. AS AUTHORIZED SERVICER FOR HSBC." Mr. Parisi, must have, as plaintiff's agent, a valid power of attorney from HSBC to EQUITY ONE for that express purpose. Additionally, if a power of attorney is presented to this Court and it refers to pooling and servicing agreements, the Court needs a properly offered copy of the pooling and servicing agreements, to determine if the servicing agent may proceed on behalf of plaintiff. (EMC Mortg. Corp. v Batista, 15 Misc 3d 1143 (A) [Sup Ct, Kings County 2007]; Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v Lewis, 14 Misc 3d 1201 [*4](A) [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2006]).

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

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 submits: 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 Victor F. Parisi clarifying his employment and what corporation he serves as an officer; and an affidavit from an officer of [*5]HSBC explaining why HSBC purchased a nonperforming loan from MERS as nominee for PEOPLE'S CHOICE, and why HSBC, MERS, POPULAR and EQUITY ONE all share office space at 121 Woodcrest Road, Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003.

ORDERED, that the application of plaintiff, HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR PEOPLE'S CHOICE HOME LOAN SECURITIES TRUST SERIES 2006-1, for an order of reference for the premises located at 689 Eldert Lane, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4274, Lot 14, County of Kings), is denied without prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED, that leave is granted to plaintiff, HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR PEOPLE'S CHOICE HOME LOAN SECURITIES TRUST SERIES 2006-1, to renew its application for an order of reference for the premises located at 689 Eldert Lane, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4724, Lot 14, County of Kings), upon presentation to the Court, within forty-five (45) days from the date of this decision and order, of: an affidavit of facts executed by an officer of HSBC or someone who has a valid power of attorney from HSBC; an affidavit by Victor F. Parisi, describing his employment history for the past three years; and, an affidavit from an officer of plaintiff HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR PEOPLE'S CHOICE HOME LOAN SECURITIES TRUST SERIES 2006-1, explaining why Victor F. Parisi, who assigned the instant mortgage and loan to plaintiff, submitted an affidavit of facts on behalf of plaintiff, why plaintiff HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR PEOPLE'S CHOICE HOME LOAN SECURITIES TRUST SERIES 2006-1, purchased a nonperforming loan from MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. as nominee for PEOPLE'S CHOICE HOME LOAN, INC., and why HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION shares office space at 121 Woodcrest Road, Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003 with MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATIONS SYSTEMS, INC., POPULAR MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., and EQUITY ONE, INC.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

ENTER

___________________________

HON. ARTHUR M. SCHACK

J. S. C.