Freedom Mortgage Corporation v. Wagner

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. New York
DecidedJuly 2, 2024
Docket1:23-cv-00041
StatusUnknown

This text of Freedom Mortgage Corporation v. Wagner (Freedom Mortgage Corporation v. Wagner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Freedom Mortgage Corporation v. Wagner, (N.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________________________

FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

vs. 1:23-CV-00041 (MAD/DJS) HENRY F. WAGNER, if living and if any be dead, any and all persons who are spouses, widows, grantees, mortgagees, lienor, heirs, devisees, distributes, or successors in interest of such of the above as may be dead, and their spouses, heirs, devisees, distributees and successors in interest, all of whom and whose names and places of residences are unknown to Plaintiff,

Defendant. _____________________________________________

APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:

FRENKEL LAMBERT WEISS ALEX ZAMENHOF, ESQ. WEISMAN & GORDON LLP TODD FALASCO, ESQ. 53 Gibson Street Bay Shore, New York 11706 Attorneys for Plaintiff

Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Freedom Mortgage Corporation commenced this foreclosure action on January 11, 2023, pursuant to Article 13 of the New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law ("RPAPL") to foreclose a mortgage encumbering 22 Navara Street, Kingston, New York 12401 (the "Property"), together with the land, buildings, and other improvements located on the Property. See Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 1. According to the complaint, on November 29, 2021, Defendant executed a note promising to pay $262,500.00 plus interest to the lender. See id. at ¶ 6. As security for the note, a mortgage on the property, including the land, buildings, and other improvements located on the property, was also executed and delivered by Defendant. See id. at ¶ 7. The mortgage was subsequently assigned to Plaintiff. See id. at ¶ 8. Defendant defaulted under the terms of the note and mortgage by failing to tender the monthly payment that was due on July 1, 2022, and failing to tender any subsequent monthly payments. See id. at ¶ 9. Pursuant to the terms of the note and mortgage, Plaintiff accelerated the payments and declared due the entire amount owed on the note. See id. at ¶ 10.

At the time of the amended complaint, Plaintiff claimed that Defendant owed a principal balance of $259,700.53 with annual interest at the rate of 2.8750% accruing from June 1, 2022. See id. Additionally, Plaintiff claims that, pursuant to the terms of the note and mortgage, Defendant owes late charges, monies advanced for taxes, assessments, insurance, maintenance and preservation of the Property, and the cost, allowances, expenses of sale, and reasonable attorney's fees for the foreclosure. See id. Plaintiff alleges that it complied with the notice provisions of the mortgage and section 1304 of the RPAPL and filed information required under section 1306 of the RPAPL. See id. at ¶ 12. On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed with the Court affidavits of service, attesting that the summons and amended complaint together with the notice required by RPAPL §§ 1303, 1320,

and a New York Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR") § 3012-b Certificate of Merit were properly served on Defendant. See Dkt. No. 21-2 at ¶ 3. Specifically, Defendant was served via Publication pursuant to Publication Orders dated June 2, 2023, and July 13, 2023. See Dkt. Nos. 8, 13, 25-13. Defendant failed to respond to the complaint or otherwise appear in this action. On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff requested that the Clerk of the Court enter a certificate of entry of default pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Northern District of New York Local Rule 55.1(b) ("Local Rule"). See Dkt. No. 21. The Clerk entered the requested default in Plaintiff's favor on November 2, 2023. See Dkt. No. 22. Plaintiff moved for a default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on November 29, 2023. See Dkt. No. 25. For the following reasons, that motion is granted. II. DISCUSSION A. Entry of Default Judgment

"Rule 55 sets forth a two-step process that first requires the entry of a default through a notation on the record that the party has defaulted, and then entry of a default judgment, which is the final action in the case." La Barbera v. Fed. Metal & Glass Corp., 666 F. Supp. 2d 341, 346 (E.D.N.Y. 2009). The court clerk must enter the default pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise." In addition, Local Rule 55.1 requires [a] party applying to the Clerk for a certificate of entry of default pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) shall submit an affidavit showing that (1) the party against whom it seeks a judgment of affirmative relief is not an infant, in the military, or an incompetent person (2) a party against whom it seeks a judgment for affirmative relief has failed to plead or otherwise defend the action as provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and (3) it has properly served the pleading to which the opposing party has not responded. "After a default has been entered against a party, if that party fails to appear or otherwise move to set aside the default pursuant to Rule 55(c), a default judgment may be entered." La Barbera, 666 F. Supp. 2d at 347 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)). Further procedural requisites are imposed by Local Rule 55.2, requiring a party to submit the entry of default, a proposed default judgment, a copy of the pleading, and an affidavit setting forth the following: 1. The party against whom it seeks judgment is not an infant or an incompetent person;

2. The party against whom it seeks judgment is not in the military service, or if unable to set forth this fact, the affidavit shall state that the party against whom the moving party seeks judgment by default is in the military service or that the party seeking a default judgment is not able to determine whether or not the party against whom it seeks judgment by default is in the military service;

3. The party has defaulted in appearance in the action;

4. Service was properly effected under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4;

5. The amount shown in the statement is justly due and owing and that no part has been paid except as set forth in the statement this Rule requires; and

6. The disbursements sought to be taxed have been made in the action or will necessarily be made or incurred. In this case, Plaintiff has complied with the default procedural requirements. Plaintiff submitted an application to the court clerk in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) and Local Rule 55.1 establishing that Defendant is not an infant, in the military, or incompetent person; Defendant has failed to plead or otherwise defend the action; and Plaintiff has properly served the pleadings to which Defendant has not responded. See Dkt. No. 21-2. A default was entered by the Clerk of the Court on November 2, 2023. See Dkt. No. 22. Further, Plaintiff has complied with Fed. R. Civ. P.

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

Related

Millea v. Metro-North Railroad
658 F.3d 154 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Putnam County Savings Bank v. Bagen (In Re Bagen)
185 B.R. 691 (S.D. New York, 1995)
Rodriguez v. Almighty Cleaning, Inc.
784 F. Supp. 2d 114 (E.D. New York, 2011)
City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC
645 F.3d 114 (Second Circuit, 2011)
La Barbera v. Federal Metal & Glass Corp.
666 F. Supp. 2d 341 (E.D. New York, 2009)
Handschu v. Special Services Division
727 F. Supp. 2d 239 (S.D. New York, 2010)
Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara
10 F.3d 90 (Second Circuit, 1993)
R.B. Ventures, Ltd. v. Shane
112 F.3d 54 (Second Circuit, 1997)
Pecarsky v. Galaxiworld.com Ltd.
249 F.3d 167 (Second Circuit, 2001)
Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Atanas
285 F. Supp. 3d 618 (W.D. New York, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Freedom Mortgage Corporation v. Wagner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freedom-mortgage-corporation-v-wagner-nynd-2024.