MCLP Asset Co., Inc., LLC v. Hundley-Prince

2026 NY Slip Op 30100(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, Erie County
• Decided: January 29, 2026
• Docket: Index No. 815879-2023
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Betty Calvo-Torres

Opinion

MCLP Asset Co., Inc., LLC v Hundley-Prince 2026 NY Slip Op 30100(U) January 29, 2026 Supreme Court, Erie County Docket Number: Index No. 815879-2023 Judge: Betty Calvo-Torres Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 815879/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 146 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2026

STATE OF NEW YORK

SUPREME COURT: COUNTY OF ERIE

MCLP ASSET COMPANY, INC., LLC, DECISION- Motion for Summary

Plaintiff, Judgment and Appointment of

Referee to Compute

v. Index No. 815879-2023 CAMILLE HUNDLEY-PRINCE, et al,

Defendant.

APPEARANCES: SEAN MONAHAN, Esq. Appearing for the Plaintiff

ARNOLD GRAYSON, Pro Se Appearing for the Defendant

Calvo-Torres, A.S.C.J.

The plaintiff brings a Motion for Summary Judgment and Appointment of Referee to Compute. The defendant Arnold Grayson opposes this motion and cross moves to stay the proceedings. The Court makes its findings after considering the plaintiff's Affirmation in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment dated November 17, 2025, the defendant Arnold Grayson's Affirmation in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion and in Support of Defendants Cross Motion, dated December 13, 2025, and the Plaintiff's Affirmation in Opposition to Defendant's Cross Motion to Stay and in Further Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, dated December 19, 2025.

Deceased Party

The defendant Arnold Grayson cross moves to stay this action pending the appointment of an administrator for the estate of defendant Lillian Hundley. He argues that the stay should be granted because the plaintiff's action is a nullity because defendant Lillian Hundley is deceased. This contention is misplaced. An action against a deceased defendant is a nullity only against that defendant, but not against other defendants, HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Scivolenti, 212AD3d 600, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Dhanani, 201 AD3d 1005. A foreclosure action may properly be commenced against the heirs of the deceased borrower, Bank of New York Mellon v Rose, 210 AD3d 846. Furthermore, the plaintiff has waived its claim of a deficiency judgment

[* 1] INDEX NO. 815879/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 146 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2026

against defendant Lillian Hundl ey and her estate. They are no longer parties to this action . For these reasons, the defen dant Arnold Grayson's argument with respect to an impro per defendant is withou t merit. Therefore, the defendant Arnold Grayso n' s cross motio n for a stay of these proceedings is DENIED.

Doctri ne of Laches

The defen dant Arnold Grayson furthe r argues that the plainti ff's motio n should be denied because it is barred by the doctrin e of !aches. He conten ds that the plainti ff's delay in responding to his motio n has caused him prejudice and should be barred . The defendant Arnold Grayson contends that he has been prejudiced by impairing his ability to defend this action . The Court rejects this argument. The defen dant Arnold Grayson has clearly had sufficient time to file his present motion s and has not otherwise demonstrated that the delay has caused an inability to fully defend this action .

Summary Judgment

The defen dant Arnold Grayson contends that the motio n for summ ary judgm ent should be denied because his defenses have raised triable issues of fact. However, the only affirmative defense he has raised is that the action is a nullity because the Complaint was defective in naming the deceased Lillian Hundley as a defendant, rather than the admin istrato r of her estate. As discussed above, the Court disagrees with this argum ent. The Court finds that, while the plaint iff has met its burden of showing a prima facia case, the defen dant Arnold Grayson has failed to raise a triable issue of fact, Tri-State Loan Acquis ition Ill, LLC v Litkow ski, 172 AD3d 780, Deutsche Bank v Monic a, 131 AD3d 737. Accordingly, the plaint iffs Motio n for Summary Judgment and Appoi ntmen t of a Referee to Compute is GRANTED.

This consti tutes the DECISION of the Court. A separate Order will be filed in accordance with this Decision.

Dated: Januaryij!1, 2026

Buffalo, NY ~ HON. BETTY CALVO-TORRES, A.S.C.J.

[* 2]