FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2018 03:49 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 79
`
`INDEX NO. 716731/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2018
`
`OF THE
`COURT
`SUPREME
`COUNTY
`OF QUEENS
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
`TRUSTEE
`WELLS
`FARGO
`AS
`N.A.
`BANK,
`MORTGAGE
`LOAN TRUST,
`CARRINGTON
`ASSET-BACKED
`PASS-THROUGH
`
`STATE
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`FOR
`SERIES
`
`THE
`2007-
`
`CERTIFICATES,
`
`FRE1,
`
`-against-
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Index
`
`No.
`
`716731/2017
`
`ALCIBIADES
`ALCIBIADES
`A/K/A
`CAPITAL
`RODRIGUEZ;
`RODRIGUEZ;
`OF NEW YORK
`BANK
`ONE
`CITY
`N.A.;
`OF
`CONTROL
`ENVIRONMENTAL
`CITY
`BOARD;
`NEW
`YORK
`PARKING
`VIOLATIONS
`BUREAU;
`OF NEW YORK
`TRANSIT
`ADJUDICATION
`CITY
`DOE"
`"JOHN
`said
`name
`BUREAU;
`being
`the
`intention
`Plaintiff
`to
`designate
`being
`occupants
`of
`premises
`foreclosed
`being
`corporations
`if any,
`or entities,
`or
`lien
`the mortgaged
`
`A.
`
`it
`all
`
`any
`claiming
`
`RODRIGUEZ
`MERCEDES
`
`(USA),
`
`of
`
`upon
`
`parties,
`an interest
`
`fictitious,
`and
`and
`
`any
`herein,
`
`or
`
`having
`premises,
`
`-------------------------------------------------------------------------X
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF'S
`TO DEFENDANT'S
`IN OPPOSITION
`CROSS-MOTION
`PLAINTIFF'S
`
`OF LAW
`MEMORANDUM
`MOTION
`TO DISMISS
`FOR SUMMARY
`
`AND IN SUPPORT
`JUDGMENT
`
`OF
`
`STAFFORD
`Esq.
`Suite
`
`McGLINCHEY
`R. Newman,
`Ashley
`112 West
`34th
`Street,
`NY 10120
`New York,
`Tel:
`362-4000
`(646)
`Fax:
`365-2091
`(646)
`Attorneys
`for
`
`P/aintiff
`
`1515
`
`1 of 31
`
`

`

`FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2018 03:49 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 79
`
`INDEX NO. 716731/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2018
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Wells
`
`Fargo
`
`Bank,
`
`N.A.
`
`as Trustee
`
`for
`
`the
`
`Carrington
`
`Mortgage
`
`Loan
`
`Trust,
`
`Series
`
`2007-FRE1,
`
`Asset-Backed
`
`Pass-Through
`
`Certificates
`
`(" Plaintiff"
`("Plaintiff"),
`
`by
`
`its
`
`undersigned
`
`attorneys,
`
`respectfully
`
`submits
`
`this memorandum
`
`of
`
`law
`
`in opposition
`
`to the motion
`
`to dismiss
`
`defendant
`
`Alcibiades
`
`Rodriguez
`
`a/k/a
`
`Alcibiades
`
`A.
`
`Rodriguez
`
`(" Borrower"
`("Borrower")
`
`(the
`
`"Motion
`
`Dismiss")¹
`
`and
`
`for
`
`an Order
`
`granting
`
`the
`
`following
`
`relief:
`
`(a)
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`in
`
`favor
`
`of
`
`to
`
`of
`
`Plaintiff
`
`and
`
`the
`
`answer
`
`of
`
`striking
`
`Defendants
`
`Alcibiades
`
`Rodriguez
`
`a/k/a
`
`Alcibiades
`
`A.
`
`Rodriguez
`
`and
`
`Mercedes
`
`Rodriguez
`
`(collectively,
`
`"Answering
`
`Defendants"
`Defendants");
`
`(b)
`
`default
`
`judgment
`
`against
`
`any
`
`and
`
`all
`
`non-appearing
`
`defendants;
`
`(c)
`
`appointment
`
`of
`
`a referee
`
`to compute
`
`the
`
`amounts
`
`due
`
`to Plaintiff
`
`on
`
`its Note
`
`and Mortgage
`
`pursuant
`
`to RPAPL
`
`§1321;
`
`(d)
`
`removing
`
`"JOHN
`
`DOE"
`
`Doe,"
`
`and
`
`from
`
`the
`
`caption
`
`and
`
`replacing
`
`it with
`
`"John
`
`Doe
`
`#1,"
`
`"John
`
`Doe
`
`#2,"
`
`and
`
`"Jane
`
`the
`
`such
`
`other
`
`and
`
`further
`
`relief
`
`amending
`
`caption
`
`accordingly;
`
`and
`
`(f)
`
`for
`
`as
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`deems
`
`just
`
`and
`
`proper
`
`(the
`
`"Cross-Motion"
`"Cross-Motion").
`
`PRELIMINARY
`
`STATEMENT
`
`This
`
`is an action
`
`to
`
`foreclose
`
`a mortgage
`
`encumbering
`
`real
`
`property
`
`located
`
`in
`
`Jackson
`
`Heights,
`
`New York.
`
`In November
`
`2006,
`
`Borrower
`
`executed
`
`and
`
`delivered
`
`a promissory
`
`note
`
`in
`
`the
`
`original
`
`principal
`
`amount
`
`of $715,000.00,
`
`secured
`
`by
`
`a mortgage.
`
`Borrower
`
`defaulted
`
`on the
`
`loan
`
`by
`
`failing
`
`to make
`
`the
`
`payment
`
`due
`
`1, 2012,
`
`and
`
`despite
`
`notice
`
`of
`
`his
`
`default
`
`on February
`
`and
`
`opportunities
`
`to cure,
`
`failed
`
`to resolve
`
`the
`
`delinquency
`
`and
`
`bring
`
`the
`
`loan
`
`current.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`as holder
`
`and
`
`assignee
`
`of
`
`the
`
`note
`
`and mortgage,
`
`commenced
`
`this
`
`action
`
`on December
`
`1, 2017
`
`to
`
`foreclose
`
`upon
`
`the mortgage.
`
`After
`
`years
`
`of
`
`not
`
`paying
`
`the mortgage,
`
`Borrower
`
`now
`
`attempts
`
`to
`
`obtain
`
`a free
`
`house
`
`from
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`Borrower
`
`claims
`
`that
`
`because
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`prior
`
`servicer
`
`sent
`
`a notice
`
`of default
`
`in
`
`1
`The Motion
`of
`consists
`to Dismiss
`the "Notice
`Support"
`of Barry
`dated April
`19, 2018
`Schneps,
`dated March
`24, 2018,
`
`of Motion
`("Schneps
`
`to Dismiss,"
`dated May
`and the "Affidavit"
`Aff.");
`
`the "Affirmation
`18, 2018;
`of Alcibiades
`Rodriguez,
`
`in
`
`1
`
`2 of 31
`
`

`

`FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2018 03:49 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 79
`
`INDEX NO. 716731/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2018
`
`August
`
`of
`
`2010,
`
`the
`
`loan
`
`was
`
`accelerated
`
`in September
`
`of
`
`2010,
`
`upon
`
`expiration
`
`of
`
`the
`
`cure
`
`period,
`
`and
`
`therefore,
`
`the
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`limitations
`
`has
`
`expired.
`
`Borrower
`
`further
`
`alleges
`
`that
`
`because
`
`Plaintiff
`
`commenced
`
`a prior
`
`mortgage
`
`foreclosure
`
`action
`
`in November
`
`of
`
`2012,
`
`Index
`
`Number
`
`22603/2012
`
`(the
`
`"2012
`
`Action"
`Action"),
`
`which
`
`was
`
`subsequently
`
`voluntarily
`
`discontinued,
`
`the
`
`loan
`
`was
`
`never
`
`de-accelerated.
`
`Borrower
`
`is wrong
`
`and
`
`this
`
`action
`
`is
`
`timely
`
`and
`
`proper
`
`for
`
`a
`
`number
`
`of
`
`reasons.
`
`First
`
`and
`
`foremost,
`
`the mortgage
`
`debt
`
`was
`
`not
`
`accelerated
`
`by
`
`the
`
`default
`
`noticed
`
`mailed
`
`in
`
`2010
`
`and
`
`therefore
`
`any
`
`action
`
`to
`
`enforce
`
`the mortgage
`
`is
`
`not
`
`time-barred.
`
`Secondly,
`
`assuming
`
`arguendo
`
`that
`
`the
`
`loan
`
`was
`
`accelerated
`
`by
`
`the
`
`2012
`
`Action,
`
`the
`
`present
`
`action
`
`commenced
`
`in 2017
`
`is within
`
`the
`
`six
`
`year
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`limitations
`
`and
`
`thus
`
`timely.
`
`to
`
`the
`
`extent
`
`that
`
`the
`
`loan
`
`was
`
`accelerated
`
`upon
`
`commencement
`
`of
`
`the
`
`2012
`
`Moreover,
`
`Action,
`
`the
`
`acceleration
`
`was
`
`revoked
`
`in
`
`2016
`
`when
`
`Plaintiff
`
`voluntarily
`
`discontinued
`
`the
`
`case.
`
`Furthermore,
`
`even
`
`if
`
`the
`
`loan
`
`was
`
`considered
`
`to be accelerated,
`
`Borrower
`
`reaffirmed
`
`the
`
`debt
`
`in
`
`2015,
`
`thereby
`
`re-setting
`
`the
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`limitations.
`
`Finally,
`
`the
`
`plain
`
`language
`
`of
`
`the mortgage,
`
`which
`
`is contractually
`
`binding
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`parties,
`
`specifically
`
`states
`
`that
`
`the mortgage
`
`remains
`
`an
`
`installment
`
`contract
`
`until
`
`a judgment
`
`is entered,
`
`which
`
`has obviously
`
`not
`
`occurred.
`
`Whether
`
`2012
`
`Action
`
`accelerated
`
`the mortgage
`
`loan
`
`in
`
`the Court
`
`finds
`
`that
`
`the
`
`or not,
`
`either
`
`case,
`
`this
`
`action
`
`is
`
`timely.
`
`As
`
`such,
`
`the
`
`Motion
`
`to
`
`Dismiss
`
`should
`
`be
`
`denied.
`
`Additionally,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`is
`
`entitled
`
`to
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`because
`
`Plaintiff
`
`has
`
`established
`
`its
`
`possession
`
`of
`
`the
`
`original
`
`note,
`
`the
`
`existence
`
`of
`
`the mortgage,
`
`Borrower's
`
`default
`
`thereunder,
`
`and
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`compliance
`
`with
`
`all
`
`statutory
`
`and
`
`contractual
`
`requirements.
`
`As
`
`there
`
`are
`
`no
`
`genuine
`
`issues
`
`of material
`
`fact,
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`Cross-Motion
`
`should
`
`be granted
`
`in its entirety.
`
`2
`
`3 of 31
`
`

`

`FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2018 03:49 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 79
`
`INDEX NO. 716731/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2018
`
`FACTUAL
`
`& PROCEDURAL
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Factual
`
`Background
`
`The
`
`facts
`
`which
`
`are
`
`relevant
`
`to
`
`a disposition
`
`of
`
`this
`
`Motion
`
`are
`
`articulated
`
`in
`
`the
`
`accompanying
`
`Affidavit
`
`of Madison
`
`DaRonche,
`
`sworn
`
`to
`
`on
`
`July
`
`3, 2018
`
`"DaRonche
`
`(
`
`Aff.").
`
`Madison
`
`DaRonche
`
`is employed
`
`as a Document
`
`Control
`
`Officer
`
`by Select
`
`Portfolio
`
`Servicing,
`
`Inc.
`
`("SPS"),
`
`which
`
`is the
`
`loan
`
`servicer
`
`and
`
`attorney-in-fact
`
`for
`
`Plaintiff
`
`with
`
`respect
`
`to the
`
`loan
`
`issue
`
`action.
`
`(DaRonche
`
`Aff.
`
`at
`
`in this
`
`11; Ex.
`
`.
`
`1)
`
`On or about
`
`November
`
`24,
`
`2006,
`
`Borrower
`
`executed
`
`and
`
`delivered
`
`a promissory
`
`note
`
`to
`
`Fremont
`
`Investment
`
`& Loan
`
`("Fremont")
`
`in the
`
`original
`
`principal
`
`amount
`
`of
`
`$715,000.00
`
`(the
`
`"Note"
`"Note").
`
`(DaRonche
`
`Aff.
`
`19; Ex.
`
`3). On the
`
`same
`
`date,
`
`as collateral
`
`security
`
`for
`
`the
`
`payment
`
`of
`
`the
`
`indebtedness
`
`under
`
`the Note,
`
`the Answering
`
`Defendants
`
`executed
`
`and
`
`delivered
`
`to Mortgage
`
`Electronic
`
`Registration
`
`Systems,
`
`Inc.
`
`("MERS")
`
`as nominee
`
`for
`
`Fremont,
`
`a mortgage
`
`in
`
`the
`
`81*'
`
`amount
`
`of
`
`$715,000.00
`
`(the
`
`"Mortgage"
`"Mortgage")
`
`against
`
`the
`
`real
`
`property
`
`located
`
`at 30-56
`
`Street,
`
`Jackson
`
`Heights,
`
`New
`
`York
`
`11372
`
`(the
`
`"Property"
`"Property").
`
`(Id
`
`at 110,
`
`Ex.
`
`4).
`
`The Mortgage
`
`was
`
`recorded
`
`with
`
`the
`
`City
`
`Register
`
`of
`
`the
`
`City
`
`of New
`
`York
`
`on
`
`April
`
`16,
`
`2007
`
`as CRFN
`
`2007000195902.2
`2007000195902.
`
`Id
`
`The
`
`transfer
`
`of
`
`the
`
`ownership
`
`of
`
`the Mortgage
`
`from
`
`MERS
`
`as nominee
`
`for
`
`Fremont
`
`to
`
`the Plaintiff
`
`was made
`
`a matter
`
`record
`
`to
`
`a written
`
`Assignment
`
`of public
`
`pursuant
`
`of Mortgage,
`
`dated
`
`August
`
`11,
`
`2016,
`
`and
`
`recorded
`
`with
`
`the
`
`City
`
`Register
`
`of
`
`the
`
`City
`
`of New
`
`York
`
`September
`
`2, 2016
`
`as CRFN
`
`2016000306545.
`
`(DaRonche
`
`Aff.
`
`¶12;
`
`Ex.
`
`6).
`
`Additionally,
`
`on
`
`on
`
`April
`
`4,
`
`2017,
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`loan
`
`servicer
`
`confirmed
`
`possession
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Note
`
`indorsed
`
`in
`
`blank,
`
`which
`
`is prior
`
`to commencement
`
`of
`
`this
`
`action
`
`on December
`
`1, 2017.
`
`(DaRonche
`
`Aff.
`
`¶l
`
`l).
`
`2
`
`page on the Mortgage
`a scrivener's
`contains
`The recording
`itself
`and the legal description
`refer
`the Mortgage
`correctly
`Heights, New York.
`
`error
`listing
`to the Property
`
`79th Street. However,
`as 30-56
`the address
`81"
`located
`at 30-56
`Jackson
`8
`Street,
`
`3
`
`4 of 31
`
`

`

`FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2018 03:49 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 79
`
`INDEX NO. 716731/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2018
`
`The
`
`Answering
`
`Defendants
`
`failed
`
`to comply
`
`with
`
`the
`
`terms
`
`of
`
`the Note
`
`and Mortgage
`
`by
`
`failing
`
`to make
`
`the monthly
`
`mortgage
`
`payment
`
`due
`
`on February
`
`1, 2012,
`
`and monthly
`
`thereafter.
`
`(DaRonche
`
`Aff.
`
`¶l3).
`
`As
`
`a result
`
`of
`
`this
`
`default,
`
`the
`
`required
`
`RPAPL
`
`§ 1304
`
`90-day
`
`notices,
`
`dated
`
`August
`
`22,
`
`2017,
`
`together
`
`with
`
`a list
`
`of
`
`counseling
`
`agencies,
`
`were
`
`sent
`
`to
`
`each
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Answering
`
`Defendants
`
`at
`
`the
`
`Property
`
`as well
`
`as
`
`to
`
`their
`
`prior
`
`counsel
`
`via
`
`certified
`
`mail
`
`and
`
`for
`
`the
`
`certified
`
`first-class
`
`mail.
`
`Id
`
`¶14,
`
`Exs.
`
`7 & 10.
`
`The
`
`tracking
`
`information
`
`mailing
`
`demonstrates
`
`that
`
`the
`
`90-day
`
`notice
`
`letters
`
`were
`
`delivered.
`
`Id
`
`As
`
`further
`
`proof
`
`of Plaintiff's
`
`compliance
`
`with
`
`RPAPL
`
`§ 1304
`
`and
`
`in compliance
`
`with
`
`RPAPL
`
`§ 1306,
`
`on August
`
`23,
`
`2017,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`completed
`
`the
`
`Step-1
`
`filing
`
`with
`
`the New York
`
`State
`
`Department
`
`of Financial
`
`Services
`
`("NYSDFS")
`
`within
`
`the
`
`requisite
`
`time
`
`frame.
`
`Id
`
`¶15;
`
`Ex.
`
`8.
`
`In
`
`addition,
`
`a thirty
`
`(30)
`
`day
`
`default
`
`letter,
`
`dated May
`
`2, 2017,
`
`was
`
`sent
`
`to
`
`each
`
`of
`
`the
`
`counsel
`
`in the manner
`
`Answering
`
`Defendants
`
`at
`
`the Property
`
`as well
`
`as to their
`
`prior
`
`prescribed
`
`by
`
`the Mortgage.
`
`Id.
`
`¶16,
`
`Exs.
`
`9 4
`
`10.
`
`The
`
`30-day
`
`default
`
`notice
`
`provides
`
`that
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`expiration
`
`of
`
`the
`
`cure
`
`period
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`by
`
`said
`
`notice,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`may
`
`require
`
`immediate
`
`payment
`
`of
`
`the
`
`entire
`
`principal
`
`balance,
`
`together
`
`with
`
`interest
`
`and
`
`other
`
`monies
`
`due
`
`under
`
`the Note
`
`and
`
`Mortgage
`
`without
`
`making
`
`further
`
`demand
`
`for
`
`payment.
`
`Id
`
`The
`
`Answering
`
`Defendants
`
`nonetheless
`
`failed
`
`the
`
`due
`
`under
`
`the Note
`
`and Mortgage
`
`and
`
`remain
`
`to pay
`
`amounts
`
`B.
`
`Procedural
`
`Posture
`
`in default,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`commenced
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`action
`
`by
`
`filing
`
`the
`
`Summons
`
`and
`
`Complaint
`
`with
`
`the
`
`Queens
`
`County
`
`Clerk's
`
`Office
`
`on December
`
`1, 2017.
`
`See Affirmation
`
`of Ashley
`
`R. Newman,
`
`dated
`
`July
`
`10, 2018
`
`("
`("Newman
`
`Affirm.")
`
`¶ 3, Ex.
`
`A.
`
`Defendant
`
`Alcibiades
`
`Rodriguez
`
`was
`
`served
`
`on December
`
`30,
`
`2017
`
`with
`
`the
`
`Summons
`
`and
`
`Complaint,
`
`containing
`
`the
`
`required
`
`RPAPL
`
`§
`
`1303
`
`compliant
`
`notice
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`308(2).
`
`See Newman
`
`Affirm.
`
`¶ 4, Ex.
`
`B.
`
`Defendant
`
`Mercedes
`
`Rodriguez
`
`was
`
`also
`
`served
`
`on
`
`4
`
`5 of 31
`
`

`

`FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2018 03:49 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 79
`
`INDEX NO. 716731/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2018
`
`December
`
`30,
`
`2017
`
`with
`
`the
`
`Summons
`
`and Complaint,
`
`containing
`
`the
`
`required
`
`RPAPL
`
`§ 1303
`
`compliant
`
`notice
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`308(1).
`
`Id.
`
`According
`
`to
`
`the
`
`remaining
`
`Affidavits
`
`of
`
`Service,
`
`all
`
`other
`
`defendants
`
`were
`
`served
`
`on or before
`
`January
`
`5, 2018.
`
`Id.
`
`The
`
`Answering
`
`Defendants
`
`appeared
`
`by
`
`filing
`
`an Answer
`
`on March
`
`9, 2018
`
`containing
`
`twenty-one
`
`(21)
`
`affirmative
`
`defenses
`
`and
`
`six
`
`(6)
`
`counterclaims.
`
`See Newman
`
`Affirm.
`
`¶ 5, Ex. C.
`
`, On March
`
`26,
`
`2018,
`
`this
`
`firm
`
`appeared
`
`as co-counsel
`
`for
`
`the Plaintiff.
`
`Id.,
`
`Ex, D.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`filed
`
`a Verified
`
`Reply
`
`to the Counterclaims
`
`on April
`
`24,
`
`2018.
`
`Id.,
`
`Ex.
`
`F.
`
`A foreclosure
`
`settlement
`
`conference
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`3408
`
`was
`
`held
`
`on March
`
`30,
`
`2018,
`
`at which
`
`time
`
`this
`
`case
`
`was
`
`released
`
`from
`
`the
`
`conference
`
`part
`
`due
`
`to
`
`the
`
`Answering
`
`Defendants'
`
`failure
`
`to
`
`appear,
`
`despite
`
`receiving
`
`a
`
`letter
`
`from
`
`the
`
`court
`
`advising
`
`of
`
`the
`
`conference.
`
`See Newman
`
`Affirm.
`
`¶ 7, Ex.
`
`E.
`
`Thereafter,
`
`Borrower
`
`filed
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`motion
`
`to
`
`dismiss
`
`based
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`alleged
`
`expiration
`
`of
`
`the
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`limitations.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`commenced
`
`a prior
`
`action
`
`to foreclose
`
`on November
`
`7, 2012,
`
`pursuant
`
`to docket
`
`number
`
`22603/2012
`
`(the
`
`"2012
`
`Action"
`Action").
`
`See Newman
`
`Affirm.
`
`113.
`
`In
`
`connection
`
`with
`
`the
`
`2012
`
`Action,
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`prior
`
`servicer
`
`mailed
`
`an August
`
`6,
`
`2010
`
`Default
`
`Notice
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`Borrower
`
`(the
`
`"2010
`
`Default
`
`Notice"
`Notice").
`
`See
`
`Schneps
`
`Aff.,
`
`Ex.
`
`D.
`
`In May
`
`of
`
`2016,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`voluntarily
`
`discontinued
`
`the
`
`2012
`
`Action.
`
`See Newman
`
`Affirm.
`
`¶13,
`
`Ex.
`
`I.
`
`LEGAL
`
`STANDARD
`
`On a motion
`
`to
`
`the Court
`
`must
`
`"accept
`
`the
`
`facts
`
`as alleged
`
`in the
`
`complaint
`
`as
`
`dismiss,
`
`true,
`
`accord
`
`plaintiff
`
`the
`
`benefit
`
`of
`
`every
`
`possible
`
`favorable
`
`inference,
`
`and
`
`determine
`
`only
`
`whether
`
`the
`
`facts
`
`as alleged
`
`fit within
`
`any
`
`cognizable
`
`legal
`
`theory."
`
`Faison
`
`v. Lewis,
`
`25 N.Y.3d
`
`220,
`
`224
`
`(2015).
`
`Furthermore,
`
`where
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`moves
`
`to
`
`dismiss
`
`on
`
`the
`
`ground
`
`that
`
`the
`
`action
`
`is
`
`time-barred,
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`must
`
`make
`
`a prima
`
`facie
`
`showing
`
`that
`
`the
`
`period
`
`within
`
`which
`
`to
`
`commence
`
`a timely
`
`lawsuit
`
`has
`
`expired.
`
`If
`
`the.the
`
`defendant
`
`makes
`
`that
`
`showing,
`
`the
`
`5
`
`6 of 31
`
`

`

`FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2018 03:49 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 79
`
`INDEX NO. 716731/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2018
`
`burden
`
`shifts
`
`to
`
`the
`
`plaintiff
`
`to
`
`raise
`
`a question
`
`of
`
`fact
`
`as
`
`to whether
`
`the
`
`action
`
`was
`
`actually
`
`commenced
`
`within
`
`the
`
`applicable
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`limitations,
`
`the
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`limitations
`
`has
`
`been
`
`tolled,
`
`or an exception
`
`to the
`
`limitations
`
`period
`
`is applicable.
`
`Quinn
`
`v. McCabe,
`
`Collins,
`
`McGeough
`
`&
`
`Fowler,
`
`LLP,
`
`138
`
`A.D.3d
`
`1085,
`
`(2d
`
`Dep't
`
`2016).
`
`Only
`
`if
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`makes
`
`a prima
`
`facie
`
`the
`
`time
`
`expired
`
`will
`
`burden
`
`plaintiff
`
`showing
`
`that
`
`in which
`
`to
`
`sue
`
`has
`
`the
`
`shift
`
`to
`
`the
`
`to
`
`aver
`
`evidentiary
`
`facts
`
`establishing
`
`that
`
`the
`
`case
`
`falls
`
`within
`
`an exception
`
`to the
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`limitations.
`
`Swift
`
`v. New York
`
`Medical
`
`College,
`
`25 A.D.3d
`
`686
`
`(2d
`
`Dep't
`
`2006).
`
`Here,
`
`based
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`documentary
`
`evidence
`
`provided,
`
`Borrower
`
`fails
`
`to
`
`conclusively
`
`establish
`
`that
`
`the
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`limitations
`
`period
`
`has
`
`expired.
`
`Moreover,
`
`CPLR
`
`3212
`
`states
`
`that
`
`party
`
`for
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`action,
`
`after
`
`issue
`
`has
`
`been
`
`(a)
`
`joined."
`
`"any
`
`may move
`
`in any
`
`See CPLR
`
`3212.
`
`On
`
`a motion
`
`for
`
`summary
`
`judgment,
`
`the
`
`moving
`
`party
`
`has
`
`the
`
`burden
`
`of
`
`establishing
`
`"a prima
`
`facie
`
`showing
`
`of
`
`entitlement
`
`to judgment
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`law
`
`[by]
`
`tendering
`
`sufficient
`
`evidence
`
`to demonstrate
`
`the
`
`absence
`
`of
`
`any material
`
`issues
`
`of
`
`fact."
`
`Voss
`
`v. Netherland
`
`Ins.
`
`Co.,
`
`22 N.Y.3d
`
`728,
`
`734
`
`(2014)
`
`(quoting
`
`Alvarez
`
`v.
`
`Prospect
`
`68 N.Y.2d
`
`324
`
`In foreclosure
`
`once
`
`the mortgagee
`
`Hospital,
`
`320,
`
`(1986).
`
`litigation,
`
`has
`
`established
`
`its
`
`prima
`
`facie
`
`case
`
`by
`
`presenting
`
`the
`
`promissory
`
`note,
`
`mortgage
`
`and
`
`proof
`
`of
`
`default,
`
`the mortgagee
`
`has
`
`a presumptive
`
`right
`
`to
`
`foreclose.
`
`Valley
`
`Nat'l
`
`Bank
`
`v. Deutsch,
`
`88
`
`A.D.3d
`
`691
`
`(2d Dept.
`
`2011).
`
`This
`
`presumptive
`
`right
`
`can
`
`only
`
`be
`
`overcome
`
`with
`
`an affirmative
`
`,
`
`defense
`
`that
`
`is established
`
`by
`
`the mortgagor.
`
`See First
`
`Nat'l
`
`Bank
`
`of Highland
`
`v. J & J Milano,
`
`Inc.,
`
`160 A.D.2d
`
`670,
`
`671
`
`(2d Dept.
`
`1990).
`
`6
`
`7 of 31
`
`

`

`FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2018 03:49 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 79
`
`INDEX NO. 716731/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2018
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`OPPOSITION
`
`TO MOTION
`
`TO DISMISS
`
`I.
`
`Statute
`
`of Limitations
`
`for
`
`a Mortgage
`
`Foreclosure
`
`Action
`
`An action
`
`to foreclose
`
`a mortgage
`
`is governed
`
`a six-year
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`limitations.
`
`CPLR
`
`by
`
`213(4);
`
`Torah
`
`v. Dell
`
`Equity,
`
`LLC,
`
`90 A.D.3d
`
`746,
`
`935 N.Y.S.2d
`
`33 (2d Dept.
`
`2011);
`
`LaPlaca
`
`v.
`
`Schell,
`
`68 A.D.3d
`
`1478,
`
`892 N.Y.S.2d
`
`244
`
`(3d Dept.
`
`2009).
`
`"The
`
`Statute
`
`of Limitations
`
`in a mortgage
`
`foreclosure
`
`action
`
`begins
`
`to run
`
`six
`
`years
`
`from
`
`due
`
`date
`
`for
`
`each
`
`unpaid
`
`installment
`
`or
`
`the
`
`time
`
`the mortgagee
`
`is entitled
`
`to
`
`demand
`
`full
`
`the
`
`payment,
`
`or when
`
`the mortgage
`
`has
`
`been
`
`accelerated
`
`by
`
`a demand
`
`or
`
`an
`
`action
`
`is
`
`brought."
`
`Saini
`
`v. Cinelli
`
`Enterprises
`
`Inc.,
`
`289 A.D.2d
`
`770,
`
`776,
`
`733 N.Y.S.2d
`
`824,
`
`826
`
`(3d Dept.
`
`2001).
`
`"The
`
`law
`
`is well
`
`settled
`
`that with
`
`respect
`
`to a mortgage
`
`payable
`
`in installments,
`
`there
`
`are
`
`separate
`
`causes
`
`of
`
`action
`
`for
`
`each
`
`installment
`
`accrued,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`limitations
`
`begins
`
`to
`
`run,
`
`on
`
`the
`
`date
`
`each
`
`installment
`
`becomes
`
`due
`
`unless
`
`the
`
`mortgage
`
`debt
`
`is
`
`accelerated."
`
`1997).
`
`Once
`
`Loiacono
`
`v. Goldberg,
`
`240
`
`A.D.2d
`
`476,
`
`477,
`
`658
`
`N.Y.S.2d
`
`138,
`
`139
`
`(2d
`
`Dept.
`
`accelerated,
`
`the
`
`entire
`
`amount
`
`is due
`
`and
`
`the
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`limitations
`
`begins
`
`to
`
`run
`
`on
`
`the
`
`entire
`
`debt.
`
`Arbisser
`
`v. Gelbelman,
`
`286 A.D.2d
`
`693,
`
`730 N.Y.S.2d
`
`157
`
`(2d Dept.
`
`2001).
`
`II.
`
`The Mortgage
`
`Cannot
`
`Be Accelerated
`
`Before
`
`Judgment
`
`Neither
`
`the
`
`2010
`
`Default
`
`Notice
`
`or
`
`the
`
`2012
`
`Action
`
`accelerated
`
`the
`
`loan
`
`since
`
`acceleration
`
`does
`
`not
`
`occur
`
`until
`
`judgment
`
`is entered.
`
`Co.
`
`v. Rosbro
`
`held
`
`that
`
`an
`
`The
`
`Court
`
`of
`
`Appeals,
`
`in Albertina
`
`Realty
`
`Realty
`
`Corp.,
`
`acceleration
`
`clause
`
`is
`
`"a
`
`fair
`
`and
`
`legal
`
`contract
`
`which
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`to the mortgage
`
`had
`
`a right
`
`to
`
`into."
`
`enter
`
`Albertina
`
`Realty
`
`Co.
`
`v. Rosbro
`
`Realty
`
`Corp.,
`
`258 NY 472,
`
`475
`
`(1932).
`
`Notably,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`stated
`
`that
`
`"[t]he
`
`agreement
`
`does
`
`not
`
`provide
`
`what
`
`the
`
`holder
`
`of
`
`the mortgage
`
`must
`
`do
`
`to
`
`evidence
`
`its
`
`election
`
`to
`
`declare
`
`the
`
`whole
`
`amount
`
`due.
`
`Such
`
`a provision
`
`could
`
`have
`
`been
`
`7
`
`8 of 31
`
`

`

`FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2018 03:49 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 79
`
`INDEX NO. 716731/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2018
`
`embodied
`
`in the
`
`contract
`
`if
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`had
`
`so
`
`desired."
`
`Id
`
`at 475-6.
`
`As
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`by
`
`the Court
`
`of
`
`Appeals
`
`"[a]
`
`familiar
`
`and
`
`eminently
`
`sensible
`
`proposition
`
`of
`
`law,
`
`is that,
`
`when
`
`parties
`
`set
`
`down
`
`their
`
`agreement
`
`in
`
`a clear,
`
`complete
`
`document,
`
`their
`
`writing
`
`should
`
`as
`
`a rule
`
`be
`
`enforced
`
`according
`
`terms."
`
`to its
`
`W W W Assocs.
`
`v. Giancontieri,
`
`77 N.Y.2d
`
`157,
`
`162
`
`(1990).
`
`"A
`
`party
`
`know
`
`its
`
`contents
`
`and
`
`to
`
`assent
`
`to
`
`them."
`
`v.
`
`who
`
`executes
`
`a contract
`
`is presumed
`
`to
`
`Nerey
`
`Greenpoint
`
`Mtge.
`
`Funding,
`
`Inc.,
`
`144 AD3d
`
`646,
`
`648
`
`(2d Dep't
`
`2016)
`
`(internal
`
`quotation
`
`marks
`
`omitted).
`
`Here,
`
`pursuant
`
`to
`
`the Mortgage,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`cannot
`
`reject
`
`a redemption
`
`payment
`
`from
`
`Defendant
`
`until
`
`judgment
`
`is entered.
`
`Indeed,
`
`Section
`
`19 of
`
`the Mortgage
`
`states:
`
`of
`
`Instrument
`this Security
`Enforcement
`Lender's
`to Have
`Right
`19. Borrower's
`I may
`Payment
`in Full,
`has required
`Immediate
`if Lender
`Even
`Discontinued.
`I will
`Instrument
`stopped.
`of
`to have enforcement
`this Security
`have the right
`sale of
`five days before
`the
`the earliest
`at any time before
`have this right
`(a)
`of
`this
`power
`of
`sale
`granted
`under
`Instrument;
`(b)
`Security
`by
`any
`Property
`for
`the termination
`of my right
`as Applicable
`law might
`another
`period
`specify
`or
`(c) a judgment
`has been entered
`of
`the Loan
`to have enforcement
`stopped;
`I will meet
`the
`Instrument.
`In order
`to have this
`this Security
`right,
`enforcing
`the full amount
`that
`then would
`be due
`conditions:
`I pay to Lender
`(a)
`following
`and the Note as ifImmediate
`Payment
`in Full had
`under
`this Security
`Instrument
`or
`to keep any of my other promises
`never been required;
`I correct my failure
`(b)
`reasonable
`I pay all of Lender's
`agreements made in this Security
`Instrument;
`(c)
`for
`this
`Instrument
`expenses
`in
`including,
`example,
`enforcing
`Security
`attorneys'
`fees, and other
`fees
`inspection
`and valuation
`reasonable
`fees, property
`in the Property
`and rights
`the purpose
`of protecting
`Lender's
`interest
`for
`incurred
`I do whatever
`Lender
`under
`and
`this
`Instrument;
`(d)
`reasonably
`Security
`and rights
`under
`this
`requires
`to assure
`that Lender's
`interest
`in the Property
`under
`the Note
`and under
`this Security
`Instrument
`and my obligations
`Security
`Lender may
`require
`that
`I pay
`the sums
`and
`Instrument
`continue
`unchanged.
`as
`in one or more of
`the following
`expenses mentioned
`through
`in (a)
`forms,
`(d)
`(c) certified
`bank
`selected
`by Lender:
`check,
`check,
`(a) cash;
`order;
`(b) money
`upon an institution
`whose
`deposits
`are
`treasurer's
`check or cashier's
`check drawn
`or
`or entity;
`(d) Electronic
`Funds
`by a federal
`insured
`agency,
`instrumentality
`I fulfill
`the conditions
`all of
`in this Section
`then
`this Security
`Transfer.
`19,
`If
`had never
`effect as if
`Immediate
`Payment
`in Full
`Instrument
`will
`remain
`in full
`enforcement
`I will
`not have the right
`to have Lender's
`been required.
`However,
`discontinued
`if
`Lender
`has
`required
`Immediate
`of
`this
`Instrument
`Security
`in Full under Section
`18 of
`this Security
`Instrument.
`(emphasis
`Payment
`added)
`
`(See DaRonche
`
`Aff.,
`
`Ex.
`
`4, Section
`
`19).
`
`Therefore,
`
`here,
`
`as
`
`in the Honorable
`
`Thomas
`
`F. Whelan,
`
`J.S.C.'s
`
`opinion
`
`in Nationstar
`
`Mortgage,
`
`LLC v. MacPherson,
`
`"the
`
`lender
`
`bargained
`
`away
`
`its
`
`right
`
`to demand
`
`payment
`
`in full
`
`8
`
`9 of 31
`
`

`

`FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2018 03:49 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 79
`
`INDEX NO. 716731/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2018
`
`simply
`
`upon
`
`a default
`
`in
`
`an
`
`installment
`
`payment
`
`or
`
`the
`
`commencement
`
`of
`
`an
`
`action
`
`and
`
`has
`
`afforded
`
`the
`
`borrower
`
`greater
`
`protections
`
`than
`
`that
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`in
`
`the
`
`statutory
`
`form
`
`of
`
`an
`
`acceleration
`
`clause
`
`under
`
`Real
`
`Property
`
`Law
`
`258"
`
`or
`
`in New
`
`York
`
`case
`
`law.
`
`See Nationstar
`
`Mortg.,
`
`LLC
`
`v. MacPherson,
`
`No.
`
`67565/14,
`
`2017 WL
`
`1369877,
`
`at
`
`*8
`
`(N.Y.
`
`Sup.
`
`Ct.
`
`Apr.
`
`3,
`
`2017).
`
`Under
`
`the
`
`express
`
`of
`
`the Mortgage,
`
`until
`
`judgment
`
`is entered,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`has
`
`no
`
`wording
`
`right
`
`to reject
`
`Borrower's
`
`payment
`
`of
`
`arrears
`
`in order
`
`to reinstate
`
`the Mortgage.
`
`Therefore,
`
`the
`
`Mortgage
`
`remains
`
`an installment
`
`contract
`
`until
`
`a judgment
`
`is entered.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`"[s]ince
`
`the mortgage
`
`debt
`
`has
`
`not
`
`been
`
`accelerated,
`
`the
`
`borrower's
`
`right
`
`and
`
`obligation
`
`to make
`
`monthly
`
`installments
`
`has
`
`not
`
`ceased.
`
`.
`
`. All
`
`sums
`
`have
`
`not,
`
`as of
`
`yet,
`
`become
`
`immediately
`
`J due
`
`and
`
`payable.
`l
`J
`
`Nationstar
`
`Mortg¬
`'O''
`
`LLC v. MacPherson,
`
`7 No.
`
`67565/14,
`
`2017 WL
`
`1369877,
`
`at
`
`*9
`
`(N.Y.
`
`Sup.
`
`Ct.
`
`Apr.
`
`3, 2017).
`
`Moreover,
`
`in U.S Bank
`
`v. Monsalve,
`
`Your
`
`Honor
`
`agreed
`
`with
`
`Judge
`
`2017 NY Slip Op.
`
`32764(U)
`
`(Queens
`
`Cnty,
`
`November
`
`25,
`
`2017),
`
`Whelan's
`
`reasoning
`
`and
`
`held
`
`that
`
`based
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`express
`
`language
`
`of
`
`the mortgage,
`
`acceleration
`
`does
`
`not
`
`occur
`
`until
`
`judgment.
`
`As
`
`the Mortgage
`
`at
`
`issue
`
`also
`
`contains
`
`the
`
`same
`
`language
`
`found
`
`in the MacPherson
`
`and Monsalve
`
`mortgages,
`
`Your
`
`Honor
`
`should
`
`also
`
`find
`
`that
`
`the
`
`subject
`
`loan
`
`has
`
`not
`
`been
`
`accelerated.
`
`As
`
`such,
`
`Borrower's
`
`Motion
`
`to
`
`Dismiss
`
`should
`
`be
`
`denied
`
`and
`
`Answering
`
`Defendants'
`
`seventh
`
`and
`
`twenty-first
`
`affirmative
`
`defenses
`
`should
`
`be stricken.
`
`Borrower
`
`Not
`
`IH.
`
`Has
`
`Demonstrated
`
`a Valid
`
`Acceleration
`
`in 2010
`
`Assuming
`
`arguendo
`
`that
`
`the
`
`loan
`
`could
`
`be accelerated
`
`prior
`
`to judgment,
`
`Borrower
`
`fails
`
`to
`
`establish
`
`a valid
`
`acceleration
`
`resulting
`
`from
`
`the
`
`2010
`
`Default
`
`Notice.
`
`As
`
`such,
`
`Borrower's
`
`motion
`
`should
`
`be denied.
`
`The
`
`question
`
`of whether
`
`the
`
`2010
`
`Default
`
`Notice
`
`was
`
`sufficient
`
`to validly
`
`accelerate
`
`the
`
`loan
`
`is a question
`
`of
`
`fact.
`
`NMNT Realty
`
`Corp.
`
`v. Knoxville
`
`2012
`
`Trust,
`
`--N.Y.S.3d--
`
`(2d Dep't
`
`June
`
`28,
`
`2017),
`
`2017 WL 2800524
`
`(holding
`
`that
`
`the
`
`lender
`
`that
`
`submitted
`
`a granted
`
`order
`
`"raised
`
`99
`
`10 of 31
`
`

`

`FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2018 03:49 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 79
`
`INDEX NO. 716731/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2018
`
`a triable
`
`issue
`
`of
`
`fact"
`
`as to whether
`
`a mortgage
`
`was
`
`accelerated).
`
`As
`
`the movant
`
`pursuant
`
`to
`
`CPLR
`
`3211(a)(5),
`
`Defendant
`
`has
`
`the
`
`burden
`
`of establishing
`
`a prima
`
`facie
`
`case
`
`that
`
`the
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`limitations
`
`has
`
`expired,
`
`which
`
`would
`
`include
`
`showing
`
`that
`
`the
`
`loan
`
`was
`
`properly
`
`accelerated.
`
`The
`
`failure
`
`to meet
`
`this
`
`burden
`
`requires
`
`denial
`
`of his motion.
`
`See In re Schwartz,
`
`44 A.D.3d
`
`779
`
`(2d Dep't
`
`2007)
`
`(issue
`
`of whether
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`limitations
`
`barred
`
`action
`
`could
`
`not
`
`be resolved
`
`on
`
`motion
`
`to dismiss
`
`because
`
`triable
`
`issues
`
`of
`
`fact
`
`existed).
`
`be
`
`Where,
`
`as here,
`
`it
`
`is alleged
`
`that
`
`the
`
`debt
`
`was
`
`accelerated
`
`by
`
`demand,
`
`that
`
`fact must
`
`communicated
`
`to the mortgagor
`
`in a clear
`
`and
`
`unequivocal
`
`manner.
`
`See Wells
`
`Fargo
`
`Bank, N A.
`
`v. Burke,
`
`94 A.D.3d
`
`980,
`
`983
`
`(2d Dep't
`
`2012)
`
`(emphasis
`
`added);
`
`see also
`
`Sarva
`
`v. Chakravorty,
`
`34 A.D.3d
`
`438,
`
`439
`
`(2d Dep't
`
`2006).
`
`Generally,
`
`notices
`
`of default
`
`that
`
`discuss
`
`a possible
`
`future
`
`event
`
`do not
`
`constitute
`
`an acceleration
`
`of a note
`
`or mortgage.
`
`See Goldman
`
`Sachs
`
`Mortg.
`
`Co.
`
`v.
`
`Mares,
`
`135 A.D.3d
`
`1121,
`
`1122
`
`(3d Dep't
`
`2016);
`
`see also
`
`Pidwell
`
`v. Duvall,
`
`28 A.D.3d
`
`829,
`
`831
`
`(3d Dep't
`
`2006).
`
`21³'
`
`Dep't
`
`the
`
`loan
`
`In
`
`Mortgage
`
`Corporation
`
`v. Adames,
`
`153
`
`A.D.3d
`
`474
`
`(2d
`
`2017),
`
`servicer
`
`served
`
`the
`
`borrower
`
`with
`
`a notice
`
`of
`
`acceleration
`
`with
`
`the
`
`same
`
`language
`
`used
`
`in
`
`the
`
`2010
`
`Default
`
`Notice,
`
`namely,
`
`that
`
`if
`
`the
`
`default
`
`was
`
`not
`
`cured,
`
`the
`
`servicer
`
`"will
`
`accelerate
`
`the
`
`maturity
`
`date
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Note..."
`
`Id.;
`
`(see
`
`also Newman
`
`Affirm,
`
`Ex.
`
`J).
`
`In reviewing
`
`this
`
`language,
`
`the
`
`Second
`
`Department
`
`held
`
`that
`
`the
`
`notice
`
`"was
`
`nothing
`
`more
`
`than
`
`a
`
`letter
`
`discussing
`
`does
`
`not
`
`constitute
`
`an
`
`exercise
`
`of
`
`the mortgage's
`
`acceleration
`
`as a possible
`
`future
`
`event,
`
`which
`
`optional
`
`acceleration
`
`clause."
`
`21''
`
`Mortgage
`
`Corporation
`
`v. Adames
`
`153 A.D.3d
`
`474,
`
`475
`
`(2d
`
`Dep't
`
`2017).
`
`Here,
`
`the
`
`2010
`
`Default
`
`Notice
`
`used
`
`the
`
`same
`
`"will
`
`accelerate"
`
`language
`
`that
`
`the
`
`Second
`
`Department
`
`found
`
`insufficient
`
`to
`
`accelerate
`
`the
`
`loan.
`
`Moreover,
`
`the
`
`Default
`
`Notice
`
`provides
`
`that
`
`the
`
`Borrower
`
`has
`
`"the
`
`right
`
`to
`
`reinstate
`
`after
`
`acceleration"
`
`and
`
`sets
`
`forth
`
`the
`
`process
`
`for
`
`such
`
`reinstatement.
`
`See
`
`Schneps
`
`Aff.,
`
`Exhibit
`
`D.
`
`Thus,
`
`the
`
`2010
`
`Default
`
`Notice
`
`10
`
`11 of 31
`
`

`

`FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2018 03:49 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 79
`
`INDEX NO. 716731/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2018
`
`does
`
`notify
`
`Borrower
`
`that
`
`he may
`
`cure
`
`the
`
`default
`
`at
`
`any
`
`time
`
`after
`
`the
`
`expiration
`
`of
`
`the
`
`referenced
`
`32-day
`
`period.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`the
`
`2010
`
`Default
`
`Notice
`
`did
`
`not
`
`provide
`
`"clear
`
`and
`
`unequivocal"
`
`notice
`
`to Borrower
`
`thatthe
`
`Mortgage
`
`debt was
`
`accelerated.
`
`Since
`
`the
`
`2010
`
`Default
`
`Notice
`
`is
`
`insufficient
`
`to
`
`accelerate
`
`the
`
`loan,
`
`assuming
`
`arguendo
`
`the
`
`loan
`
`even
`
`can
`
`be
`
`accelerated
`
`prior
`
`to judgment,
`
`the
`
`earliest
`
`that
`
`the
`
`loan
`
`could
`
`have
`
`been
`
`on November
`
`As
`
`the
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`accelerated
`
`is when
`
`Plaintiff
`
`filed
`
`the
`
`2012
`
`Action
`
`7, 2012.
`
`such,
`
`limitations
`
`does
`
`not
`
`expire
`
`until
`
`November
`
`7, 2018.
`
`The
`
`present
`
`action
`
`was
`
`commenced
`
`on
`
`December
`
`1, 2017
`
`and
`
`is
`
`thus
`
`timely.
`
`Therefore,
`
`Answering
`
`Defendants'
`
`seventh
`
`and
`
`twenty-
`
`first
`
`affirmative
`
`defenses
`
`should
`
`be stricken
`
`and Borrower's
`
`Motion
`
`to Dismiss
`
`should
`
`be denied.
`
`IV.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Revoked
`
`the Acceleration
`
`of
`
`the Debt
`
`Assuming
`
`arguendo
`
`that
`
`the Mortgage
`
`Debt
`
`was
`
`accelerated,
`
`any
`
`acceleration
`
`was
`
`revoked
`
`by
`
`the
`
`discontinuance
`
`of
`
`the
`
`2012
`
`Action.
`
`(See Newman
`
`Aff.,
`
`Ex.
`
`I).
`
`the
`
`A mortgagee
`
`may,
`
`by
`
`some
`
`affirmative
`
`act,
`
`revoke
`
`its election
`
`to accelerate
`
`loan.
`
`Fed.
`
`Nat. Mortgage
`
`Ass'n
`
`v. Mebane,
`
`208 A.D.2d
`
`892,
`
`894,
`
`618 N.Y.S.2d
`
`88,
`
`89 (2d Dept.
`
`1994).
`
`To
`
`be
`
`effective,
`
`the
`
`act
`
`of
`
`revocation
`
`must
`
`take
`
`place
`
`within
`
`the
`
`six
`
`year
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`limitations
`
`period.
`
`Id.
`
`Only
`
`if
`
`a mortgagor
`
`can
`
`show
`
`substantial
`
`prejudice
`
`will
`
`a court
`
`in the
`
`exercise
`
`of
`
`its
`
`equity
`
`jurisdiction
`
`restrain
`
`the mortgagee
`
`from
`
`revoking
`
`the
`
`acceleration.
`
`Golden
`
`v. Ramapo
`
`Improvement
`
`Corp.,
`
`78 A.D.2d
`
`648
`
`(2d Dep't
`
`1980).
`
`act
`
`of
`
`revocation."
`
`4
`
`"Withdrawing
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`foreclosure
`
`action
`
`is
`
`an
`
`affirmative
`
`Cosgrove
`
`950
`
`Corp.
`
`v. Deutsche
`
`Bank
`
`Nat.
`
`Trust
`
`Co.,
`
`2016 WL 2839341,
`
`at
`
`*2
`
`(N.Y.
`
`Sup.
`
`Ct.
`
`May
`
`11,
`
`2016)
`
`("DBNTC
`
`subsequently
`
`revoked
`
`its
`
`election
`
`to
`
`accelerate
`
`by
`
`voluntarily
`
`discontinuing
`
`the
`
`action
`
`prior
`
`to Perry
`
`appearing
`
`on December
`
`21,
`
`2012,
`
`which
`
`was
`
`within
`
`the
`
`six-year
`
`Statute
`
`of
`
`Limitations.");
`
`see U.S. Bank
`
`Nat.
`
`Ass'n
`
`v. Wongsonadi,
`
`55 Misc.
`
`3d
`
`1207(A)
`
`(N.Y.
`
`Sup.
`
`Ct.
`
`April
`
`5,
`
`2017)("Accordingly,
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`finds
`
`that
`
`discontinuing
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`11
`
`12 of 31
`
`

`

`FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2018 03:49 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 79
`
`INDEX NO. 716731/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2018
`
`foreclosure
`
`action
`
`was
`
`an
`
`affirmative
`
`act
`
`of
`
`revocation.");
`
`see
`
`also
`
`Ditech
`
`Financial
`
`LLC
`
`v.
`
`Naidu,
`
`2016 WL 6432721,
`
`at
`
`*3
`
`(N.Y.
`
`Sup.
`
`Ct.
`
`September
`
`9,
`
`2016)
`
`("discontinuing
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`foreclosure
`
`action
`
`was
`
`an affirmative
`
`act
`
`of
`
`revocation").
`
`On or
`
`about
`
`May
`
`25,
`
`2016,
`
`(prior
`
`to
`
`the
`
`purported
`
`end
`
`of
`
`the
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`limitations),
`
`Plaintiff
`
`took
`
`an
`
`affirmative
`
`act
`
`in
`
`voluntarily
`
`discontinuing
`
`the
`
`2012
`
`Action.
`
`(See Newman
`
`extent
`
`that
`
`the
`
`have
`
`been
`
`Plaintiff
`
`revoked
`
`Affirm.,
`
`Ex.
`
`I).
`
`Thus,
`
`to
`
`the
`
`debt may
`
`accelerated,
`
`acceleration.3
`acceleration.'
`
`that
`
`As
`
`such,
`
`the
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`limitations
`
`to
`
`foreclose
`
`the
`
`subject
`
`Mortgage
`
`has
`
`not
`
`expired
`
`and
`
`Borrower's
`
`Motion
`
`to
`
`Dismiss
`
`should
`
`be
`
`denied.
`
`Additionally,
`
`Answering
`
`Defendants'
`
`seventh
`
`and
`
`twenty-first
`
`affirmative
`
`defenses
`
`should
`
`be stricken.
`
`Moreover,
`
`following
`
`the
`
`voluntary
`
`revocation
`
`of
`
`acceleration,
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`actions
`
`further
`
`confirmed
`
`the
`
`debt
`
`was
`
`not
`
`accelerated.
`
`The May
`
`2, 2017
`
`Notice
`
`of Default
`
`provided
`
`Defendant
`
`the
`
`not
`
`the
`
`full
`
`accelerated
`
`amount.
`
`(See
`
`with
`
`an
`
`opportunity
`
`to
`
`cure
`
`by
`
`paying
`
`arrears,
`
`DaRonche
`
`Aff.,
`
`Ex.
`
`9).
`
`The
`
`amount
`
`claimed
`
`as
`
`owed
`
`and/or
`
`needed
`
`to
`
`reinstate
`
`was
`
`$302,449.96,
`
`significantly
`
`less
`
`than
`
`the
`
`total
`
`accelerated
`
`debt
`
`($704,563.07
`
`plus
`
`interest
`
`and
`
`late
`
`charges
`
`from
`
`January
`
`1, 2012,
`
`as set
`
`forth
`
`in the Complaint
`
`herein).
`
`Id.
`
`Moreover,
`
`the May
`
`2,
`
`2017
`
`Notice
`
`of Default
`
`specifically
`
`notified
`
`Borrower
`
`that
`
`if
`
`the
`
`default
`
`is not
`
`cured,
`
`"we
`
`may
`
`require
`
`immediate
`
`payment
`
`in
`
`full..."
`
`Id.
`
`the
`
`Notices
`
`provided
`
`Borrower
`
`Similarly,
`
`90-Day
`
`with
`
`an opportunity
`
`to
`
`cure
`
`by
`
`paying
`
`arrears
`
`in
`
`the
`
`amount
`
`of
`
`$316,653.98,
`
`again
`
`much
`
`less
`
`than
`
`the accelerated
`
`amount.
`
`(See DaRonche
`
`Aff.,
`
`Ex.
`
`7).
`
`Finally,
`
`Borrower
`
`has
`
`not
`
`alleged,
`
`nor
`
`could
`
`he allege
`
`any
`
`prejudice
`
`from
`
`the
`
`revocation
`
`of
`
`the
`
`acceleration
`
`of
`
`the mortgage
`
`loan.
`
`Indeed,
`
`this
`
`has
`
`benefited
`
`Borrower,
`
`by
`
`extending
`
`further
`
`the
`
`time
`
`he has
`
`been
`
`allowed
`
`to reside
`
`payment-free
`
`in the Property,
`
`and
`
`by
`
`reducing
`
`the
`
`3 Borrower
`However,
`
`inexplicably
`Borrower
`
`must explicitly
`the discontinuance
`that
`argues
`state that
`does not cite to a single
`case that supports
`this proposition.
`
`the acceleration
`
`is being revoked.
`
`12
`
`13 of 31
`
`

`

`FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2018 03:49 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 79
`
`INDEX NO. 716731/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2018
`
`total
`
`amount
`
`due
`
`because
`
`even
`
`with
`
`the
`
`revocation
`
`of
`
`the
`
`accelerated
`
`debt,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`cannot
`
`collect
`
`any
`
`individual
`
`installments
`
`that
`
`are more
`
`than
`
`six
`
`years
`
`past
`
`due.
`
`Wells
`
`Fargo
`
`Bank,
`
`N.A.
`
`v. Burke,
`
`supra.
`
`; Pagano
`
`v. Smith,
`
`201 A.D.2d
`
`632,
`
`634
`
`(2d Dep't
`
`1994).
`
`As
`
`such,
`
`Answering
`
`Defendants'
`
`seventh
`
`and
`
`twenty-first
`
`affirmative
`
`defenses
`
`are
`
`meritless
`
`and Borrower's
`
`Motion
`
`to Dismiss
`
`should
`
`be denied
`
`with
`
`prejudice.
`
`Defendant
`
`Acknowledged
`
`Restarted
`
`the
`
`Statute
`
`of Limitations
`
`V.
`
`the Debt
`
`and
`
`This
`
`Court
`
`should
`
`also
`
`deny
`
`Borrower's
`
`Motion
`
`because
`
`he acknowledged
`
`the Mortgage
`
`debt,
`
`thereby
`
`restarting
`
`the
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`limitations.
`
`New York
`
`statute
`
`allows
`
`for
`
`the
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`limitations
`
`to be re-set
`
`by
`
`a "reaffirmation
`
`debt."
`
`the
`
`This
`
`requires
`
`a written
`
`acknowledgement
`
`of
`
`the
`
`debt
`
`by
`
`borrowers
`
`under
`
`section
`
`of
`
`17-
`
`101
`
`of
`
`the General
`
`Obligations
`
`Law
`
`or
`
`partial
`
`payment
`
`"under
`
`circumstances
`
`amounting
`
`to
`
`a
`
`intention
`
`balance."
`
`the
`
`See Williams
`
`3d
`
`clearly
`
`demonstrated
`
`to pay
`
`v. Lopes,
`
`9 Misc.
`
`1116(A)
`
`(Bronx
`
`Cnty.
`
`