Flagstar Bank v. Bellafiore

94 A.D.3d 1044, 943 N.Y.S.2d 551
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 24, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 94 A.D.3d 1044 (Flagstar Bank v. Bellafiore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Flagstar Bank v. Bellafiore, 94 A.D.3d 1044, 943 N.Y.S.2d 551 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated February 1, 2011, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint, to strike the answer of the defendant Lauren Bellafiore, for an order of reference, and for leave to amend the caption to delete the defendants sued herein as “John Does” and “Jane Does.”

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint, to strike the answer of the defendant Lauren Bellafiore, for an order of reference, and for leave to amend the caption to delete the defendants sued herein as “John Does” and “Jane Does” is granted.

[1045]*1045The Supreme Court improperly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint, to strike the answer of the defendant Lauren Bellafiore, for an order of reference, and for leave to amend the caption to delete the defendants sued herein as “John Does” and “Jane Does” on the ground that the plaintiff had not filed an attorney affirmation in accordance with Administrative Order 548/10, which was issued by the Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York on October 20, 2010. Administrative Order 548/10 (hereinafter the Administrative Order), which has since been replaced by Administrative Order 431/11, requires the plaintiffs counsel in a residential mortgage foreclosure action to file with the court an affirmation confirming the accuracy of the plaintiffs pleadings. In cases pending on the effective date of the Administrative Order, where no judgment of foreclosure has been entered, the attorney affirmation is required to be filed at the time of filing of either the proposed order of reference or the proposed judgment of foreclosure (see Administrative Order 548/10, replaced by Administrative Order 431/11).

This mortgage foreclosure action was pending at the time of the effective date of the Administrative Order, and the plaintiff filed its motion, which included a proposed order of reference, approximately five months before the Administrative Order was issued. Thus, the plaintiff could not have filed the attorney affirmation pursuant to the Administrative Order when it filed its motion and proposed order of reference. Therefore, based on the plain language of the Administrative Order, the plaintiff is required to file the attorney affirmation at the time it files the proposed judgment of foreclosure (see US Bank, N.A. v Boyce, 93 AD3d 782 [2012]).

Furthermore, the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the mortgage, the underlying note, and an affidavit of its Vice President attesting to the default (see HSBC Bank USA, NA v Schwartz, 88 AD3d 961 [2011]; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Agnello, 62 AD3d 662, 663 [2009]; EMC Mtge. Corp. v Riverdale Assoc., 291 AD2d 370 [2002]). Since no opposition was filed, no triable issue of fact was raised in response to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing or as to the merits of any of the defendant Lauren Bellafiore’s affirmative defenses (see Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Perez, 41 AD3d 590 [2007]). Accordingly, those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint, to strike the answer of the defendant Lauren Bellafiore, and for an order of reference should have been granted.

[1046]*1046Additionally, as the plaintiff demonstrated that there were no “John Does” or “Jane Does” occupying the subject premises, that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to amend the caption to delete the defendants sued herein as “John Does” and “Jane Does” should have been granted (see Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, Inc. v Meltzer, 67 AD3d 872, 873-874 [2009]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiffs remaining contention. Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v. Goldstein
2026 NY Slip Op 30952(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cropper
2026 NY Slip Op 30759(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Sriram
2026 NY Slip Op 30758(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
Board of Mgrs. of Tribeca Townhomes v. 16 Warren St. PH, LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 34413(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Woori Am. Bank v. DK Beauty Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 30061(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
U.S. Bank Trust Co., N.A. v. Moran
2024 NY Slip Op 34561(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Columbia Capital II Inc. v. 514 W. 44th St., Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 34566(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Cl Notes LLC v. 7th Realty Holdings, LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 33862(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Kocak
2024 NY Slip Op 33190(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Wu
2024 NY Slip Op 30543(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Avant Capital 388 Broadway LLC v. 388 Broadway Owners LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 30338(U) (New York Supreme Court, 2024)
Countrywide Bank, FSB v. Singh
2019 NY Slip Op 4353 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Caruso
2019 NY Slip Op 2673 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Pretto
2018 NY Slip Op 8738 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. MacPherson
56 Misc. 3d 339 (New York Supreme Court, 2017)
Bank of New York Mellon v. Morga
56 Misc. 3d 256 (New York Supreme Court, 2017)
Pennymac, Corp. v. DiPrima
54 Misc. 3d 990 (New York Supreme Court, 2016)
Downey Sav. & Loan Assn., F.A. v. Trujillo
142 A.D.3d 1040 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Karastamatis
52 Misc. 3d 1007 (New York Supreme Court, 2016)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Burke
52 Misc. 3d 944 (New York Supreme Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 A.D.3d 1044, 943 N.Y.S.2d 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flagstar-bank-v-bellafiore-nyappdiv-2012.