Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Cybula

Supreme Court, Suffolk County

October 24, 2017

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, Plaintiff,
v.
Paula N. Cybula; North Fork Bank Successor by Merger to Greenpoint Bank F/K/A Green Point Savings Bank; Workmen's Benefit Fund of the United States of America, Defendants.

          Ras Boriskin, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiff

          North Fork Bank Successor by Merger to Greenpoint Bank F/K/A Green Point Savings Bank

          Workmen's Benefit Fund of the United States of America c/o Delta Funding Corp.

          Ellen Schaffer, Esq. Referee

          HON. ROBERT F. QUINLAN J.S.C.

         Upon the following papers read on this application for an order for: vacating the judgment of foreclosure and sale dated September 14, 2016, confirming the referee's oath and report, granting plaintiff default judgment, granting judgment of foreclosure and sale amending the caption and extinguishing the liens of defendants North Fork Bank Successor by Merger to Greenpoint Bank f/k/a Green Point Savings Bank and Workmen's Benefit Fund of the United States of America; Notice of Motion dated March 6, 2017and supporting papers; it is

         ORDERED that this unopposed motion by plaintiff is denied; and it is further

         ORDERED that all of the provisions of this Court's Judgment of Foreclosure dated September 14, 2016 remain in full force and effect, and plaintiff is to proceed pursuant to that judgment.

         This is an action to foreclose a mortgage on the premises known as 381 East Heathcote Road, Lindenhurst, Suffolk County, NY. Plaintiff commenced this action in 2007. The court declines to detail the ten year history of this action except to the extent that Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale was granted by order of the court dated September 14, 2016 and to address the history of this motion.

         Plaintiff's motion was originally returnable March 30, 2017, but adjourned to April 6, 2017. By letter dated April 7, 2017, which incorrectly characterized this motion as a "Motion in Support of Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale, " plaintiff's counsel asked that the motion "be held in abeyance" as defendant Paula N. Cybula ("defendant") had applied for a loan modification and plaintiff wished to prevent "a violation of dual tracking." By letter dated May 23, 2017, plaintiff's counsel advised the court that defendant had been denied a loan modification and asked the court to "proceed with its determination of Plaintiff's motion." Before a decision could be made, by letter dated June 12, 2017 plaintiff's counsel again asked that "the pending Motion for Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale, be held in abeyance" as defendant was being reviewed for a loan modification and plaintiff again wished to "prevent a violation of dual tracking, " adding it would advise the court "whether it intends to proceed with the foreclosure." The court's Principal Law Clerk wrote to plaintiff's counsel stating the court's position that a judgment of foreclosure had already been issued and that although applicable Federal Regulations may preclude a servicer from certain acts, those regulations did not bind the court. The court next heard from plaintiff's counsel by letter dated October 12, 2017, wherein plaintiff's counsel advised that defendant had not been approved for loss mitigation and that plaintiff wished a determination on its "motion for Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale."

         This is not a motion for judgment of foreclosure and sale, as that had been previously granted as indicated above, rather it seeks to vacate that judgement, and then have the court issue another an order resettling that judgment of foreclosure and sale.

         At the outset the court notes that in order for it to act, plaintiff's submissions must be legally adequate. Here plaintiff's submissions do not include an adequate affidavit of mailing of the motion upon defendants (CPLR 2103[c]). Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the requirements of CPLR 2103 (c) as there is no proof of mailing in accordance with CPLR 2103(f) (1) (see Metzger v. Esseks, 168 A.D.2d 287 [2d Dept1990]; Heffernan v. Village of Munsey Park, 133 A.D.2d 139');">133 A.D.2d 139 [2d Dept 1987]; Vivienne Etienne Medical Care, P.C. v. County-wide Ins. Co., 114 A.D.3d 33, 47 [2d Dept 2013].

         However, even if plaintiff had submitted sufficient proof of mailing in accordance with CPLR 2103 the court would have denied the motion.

         Plaintiff's present motion seeks leave of court to resettle the previously issued judgment of foreclosure and sale. Plaintiff fails to provide a legal basis for the resettlement. The only explanation given the court in support of the motion is that the after the judgment of foreclosure and sale was granted on September 14, 2016, but prior to its entry by the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk on November 21, 2016, defendant submitted an application for a loan modification on or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.