Preview:

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Bouvin 2009 NY Slip Op 32670(U) September 28, 2009 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 15713/08 Judge: Peter H. Mayer Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

[* 1]
INDEXNO. 15713-08 -

SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK IAS PART 17 - SUFFOLK COUNTY

PRESENT:
1 lon. P Z T E R H. MAYER

Ju:tice of the Supreme Court

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE #001 -

X
i'o1JN'T'F:YWIDE HOME LOANS,INC.

Plaintiff,
- against ~t BOI WIN, ~t 11 ing and if he be dead, any and all other

BERKMAN, HENOCH, PETERSON & PEDDY, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff 100 Garden City Plaza Garden City, N. Y. 1 1530

irwnx

persons, who may claim as devisees, distributes. legal representatives and successors in interest of said defendants, all ot whom and whose places of residence are iinknown to the plaintiff and cannot after diligent inquiry be ascertained
I<( )SEMARIE BOUVIN,
"-.I( DOE # 1 " through "JOHN DOE #12," >HN rhe last twelve names being fictitious and unknown to plaintiff, the persons or parties in1ended tieing the tenants,

uupants. persons or corporations, if any, having or claiming an interest in or lien ,ipoii the premises, described in the i ( 1n p lai 1 1 ' 1. Defendants.

:

X

I llsori the reading and filing of the following papers in this matter :ex parte application for an order I j reference tiled on Aug. 29, 2008, supported by the affirmation of Sara Z. Boriskin,Esq. dated July 25, ~ !OOX, and now IJF'ON DUE DELIBERATION AND CONSIDERATIONBY THE COURT ofthe foregoing ncipers. the motion is decided as follows : it is ORDERED that plaintiffs application (seq. # 00 1) for an order of reference in this foreclosure ,iction 1s considered under 2008 NY Laws, Chapter 472, enacted August 5 , 2008, as vvell as the related

[* 2]

>tatcites and case law, and is hereby denied without prejudice and with leave to resubmit upon proper papers,

for ihe following reasons: (1). The plaintiff has failed to submit proper evidentiary proof, including an .lfi'tidavit fi-om one with personal knowledge, as to whether or not the loan in foreclosure in this action is a

'subprime home loan" as defined in RPAPL $1304 or a "high-cost home loan'' as defined in Banking Law b h - I . (2). The plaintiff has failed to submit evidentiary proof, including an affidavit from one with personal hiowledge. of proper compliance with the time and content requirements specified in the notice of default riro isions set forth in the mortgage, and evidentiary proof of proper service of said notice. (3).The plaintiff !ICis failed to submit evidentiary proof, including an affidavit from one with personal knowledge, of a-oiiipliance with the requirements of CPLR $3215(g)(3) regarding the additional notice by mail of simnionses in foreclosures actions, and proof of proper service of said additional mailing. (4). The plaintiff iaiied I O submit evidentiary proof of compliance with the personal service provisions of CPLR $308, lnc:iLidingproof c f "due diligence" for those defendants served pursuant to CPLR

Download 2009_32670.pdf

New York Law