Supreme Court, Suffolk County Index No /08. Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division Second Department LASALLE BANK, N.A.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Supreme Court, Suffolk County Index No /08. Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division Second Department LASALLE BANK, N.A."

Transcription

1 To be argued by: Laura Etlinger Time requested: 10 minutes Supreme Court, Suffolk County Index No /08 Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division Second Department LASALLE BANK, N.A., -AGAINST- PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, JAMES F. PACE AND LINDA PACE, AND DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, NATIONAL CITY BANK AND JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD Solicitor General ANDREW D. BING Deputy Solicitor General LAURA ETLINGER Assistant Solicitor General of Counsel DEFENDANTS, NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL, INTERVENOR. BRIEF OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Intervenor The Capitol Albany, New York (518) Dated: March 1, 2012 Reproduced on Recycled Paper

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... iii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE... 2 A. Documented Abuses in Mortgage Foreclosure Proceedings Led to State and Federal Investigations... 3 B. The Legislature Responded to the Mortgage Foreclosure Crisis With Comprehensive Legislation and a Delegation of Specific Rulemaking Authority to the Chief Administrative Judge C. The Chief Administrative Judge Issued an Administrative Order and a Rule to Protect the Integrity of New York Judicial Proceedings D. Supreme Court Invalidates Administrative Order and Rule a(f) ARGUMENT 1. Proceedings Below Decision of Supreme Court Granting LaSalle Bank Summary Judgment and Ordering Appointment of a Receiver THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WAS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AND THE RULE PURSUANT TO HER PLENARY CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OVER ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND PURSUANT TO A VALID DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY BY THE LEGISLATURE A. The Chief Administrative Judge s Order Requiring the Attorney Affirmation Was a Valid Exercise of Her Plenary Administrative Powers i

3 ARGUMENT (cont d) Table of Contents (cont d) PAGE B. The Chief Administrative Judge s Order Was Also a Proper Exercise of Authority Delegated by the Legislature The Judiciary Law and 2009 foreclosure legislation authorize the order and the rule The order and the rule are consistent with limitations on the Chief Administrative Judge s authority CONCLUSION ADDENDUM AO AO A1...A7 Administrative Order of the New Jersey Acting Administrative Director of the Courts...A10 Revised Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Affidavit Policy of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas...A28 Order of the Chief Justice of South Carolina...A30 Maryland Rules of Procedure, Rule A35 ii

4 CASES TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PAGE A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp., Matter of v. Lezak, 69 N.Y.2d 1 (1986)... 32,34 Corkum v. Bartlett, 46 N.Y.2d 424 (1979) Levenson v. Lippman, 4 N.Y.3d 280 (2005)... 25,27 McQuigan v. Delaware, Lackawanna & W.R.R. Co., 129 N.Y. 50 (1891) Met Council, Inc., Matter of v. Crosson, 84 N.Y.2d 328 (1994)... 24,25 People v. Correa, 15 N.Y.3d 213 (2010)... 24,25 People v. Ramos, 85 N.Y.2d 678 (1995)... 34,35,37 Scoralick, Matter of v. Milonas, 207 A.D.2d 159 (3d Dep t), lv. denied, 86 N.Y.2d 707 (1995)... 24,25 STATE CONSTITUTION N.Y. Const. Art ,24 28(a)... 23n 28(b)... 1,23, ,23,31 iii

5 STATE STATUTES Table of Authorities (cont d) PAGE CPLR 1012(b)(1)... 1, , (a) (b) (d) (e) Executive Law ,21 Judiciary Law 210(2)... 23n (1)(b)... 2,23, (2)(d)... 2,23,32 RPAPL L. 2008, ch , a L. 2009, ch , ,11n 1-a... 10,11n ,11n ,11n 10-a(1)... 2,12,23,33 iv

6 Table of Authorities (cont d) STATE RULES AND REGULATIONS PAGE 22 N.Y.C.R.R. 80.1(a) (b)(6)... 24, (c)(3)... 28, a(b) a a(b) a(c) a(f)... 1,13,15, Part 1200, rule ,36 MISCELLANEOUS Administrative Order passim passim Administrative Order of the New Jersey Acting Administrative Director of the Courts (Dec. 10, 2010) Congressional Oversight Panel, Examining the Consequences of Mortgage Irregularities for Financial Stability and Loss Mitigation (Nov. 16, 2010), available at: ov/documents/cop report.pdf... 3 David Streitfeld, Backlog of Cases Gives a Reprieve on Foreclosures, N.Y. Times (June 19, 2011), available at: 16 v

7 Table of Authorities (cont d) MISCELLANEOUS PAGE Federal Reserve System, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency & Office of Thrift Supervision, Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices (April 20111), available at: 9 Gretchen Morgensen, New York Subpoenas 2 Foreclosure-Related Firms, N.Y. Times (Apr. 8, 2011), available at: Hon. Ann Pfau, Chief Administrative Judge, New York Courts First in Country to Institute Filing Requirement to Preserve Integrity of Foreclosure Process (Oct. 20, 2010), available at: 15 Hon. Ann Pfau, 2010 Report of the Chief Administrator of the Courts Pursuant to Chapter 507 of the Laws of 2009 (State of New York Unified Court System 2010), available at: 3n,10 Hon. Ann Pfau, 2011 Report of the Chief Administrator of the Courts Pursuant to Chapter 507 of the Laws of 2009 (State of New York Unified Court System 2011), available at: 16 Maryland Rules of Procedure, Rule (2011) Memorandum in Support of Governor s Program Bill #46R, reprinted in Bill Jacket to Chapter 507 of the Laws of n Office of the New York Attorney General, Attorney General Cuomo Expands Probe of New York Foreclosure Actions, Press Release (Oct. 12, 2010), available at: 4 vi

8 MISCELLANEOUS Table of Authorities (cont d) PAGE Office of the New York Attorney General, AG Schneiderman and Federal Officials Detail Joint Investigation Into Mortgage Crisis, Press Release (Jan. 27, 2012), available at: Office of the New York Attorney General, AG Schneiderman Announces Major Lawsuit Against Nation s Largest Banks for Deceptive and Fraudulent Use of Electronic Mortgage Registry, Press Release (Feb. 3, 2012), available at: 6 Office of the New York Attorney General, A.G. Schneiderman Secures $136 Million for Struggling New York Homeowners in Mortgage Servicing Agreement, Press Release (Feb. 9, 2012) available at: 7 Office of the White House Press Secretary, Remarks by the President on the Housing Settlement (Feb. 9, 2012), available at: 7 Order of the Chief Justice of South Carolina (May 2, 2011) Philip A. Lehman, Assistant Attorney General, North Carolina Dept. of Justice, Executive Summary of Multistate/Federal Settlement of Foreclosure Misconduct Claims, available at: 7 Revised Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Affidavit Policy of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (Dec. 22, 2010) 17 Robbie Whelan, GMAC Spotlight On Robo-Signer, Wall St. J. (Sept. 22, 2010), available at: html vii

9 MISCELLANEOUS Table of Authorities (cont d) PAGE Senate Memorandum in Support of S8143A, reprinted in Bill Jacket to Chapter 472 of the Laws of United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), Mortgage Foreclosures: Documentation Problems Reveal Need for Ongoing Regulatory Oversight, GAO (May 2011), available at: 8,9 viii

10 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Attorney General submits this brief in intervention pursuant to Executive Law 71 and Civil Practice Law and Rules ( CPLR ) 1012(b)(1) in this mortgage foreclosure appeal to defend the constitutionality of Administrative Order (originally issued as Administrative Order ) and Rule a(f), 22 N.Y.C.R.R a(f). The administrative order and the rule require attorney certification of the accuracy of the plaintiffs filings in mortgage foreclosure actions. The Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York adopted the administrative order and rule to curb documented widespread abuses in mortgage foreclosure proceedings that threatened the integrity of the judicial process. Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), mistakenly concluded that the Chief Administrative Judge lacked the authority to issue the order and the rule. In fact, the Chief Administrative Judge was authorized to adopt the order and rule under (1) her constitutional authority to regulate the administration of the courts, see N.Y. Const. Art. 6, 28(b), (2) the Legislature s valid delegation of its authority to regulate practice and procedure in the courts, see N.Y. Const. Art. 6,

11 30; Judiciary Law 211(1)(b), 212(2)(d), and (3) a specific legislative delegation of rule-making authority in 2009 legislation providing for a foreclosure settlement process, see New York Laws of 2009, ch. 507, 10-a(1). Each of these sources of authority alone would be sufficient to sustain the validity of the administrative order and rule. Together they overwhelmingly support the Chief Administrative Judge s authority to adopt the administrative order and the rule. Accordingly, the administrative order and rule are authorized and thus constitutional. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This section of the brief first documents the abuses that led the Legislature and the Chief Administrative Judge to take action to ensure that mortgage foreclosure actions are fairly and properly conducted. The brief next describes the Legislature s 2008 and 2009 enactments and the Chief Administrative Judge s order and rule. Finally, the Supreme Court proceedings in this case and the decision below are summarized. This background information demonstrates that the administrative order and the rule respond to the crisis in mortgage foreclosure proceedings and are constitutional because they are within the Chief Administrative Judge s constitutional and statutory authority. 2

12 A. Documented Abuses in Mortgage Foreclosure Proceedings Led to State and Federal Investigations. The abuses committed in recent years by mortgage servicers in mortgage foreclosure proceedings are well documented. Multiple employees of the major servicers have admitted in sworn testimony that they perpetrated systematic fraud on the courts in foreclosure proceedings by "robo-signing" affidavits -- i.e., attesting to personal knowledge about mortgages and properties despite having no such knowledge. These abuses occurred in hundreds of thousands of proceedings nationwide. 1 See, e.g., Congressional Oversight Panel, Examining the Consequences of Mortgage Irregularities for Financial Stability and Loss Mitigation (Nov. 16, 2010), at 7, available at ate.gov/documents/cop report.pdf; Robbie Whelan, GMAC Spotlight On 'Robo-Signer', Wall St. J. (Sept. 22, 2010), available at 1 The dramatic increase in the number of foreclosure proceedings being commenced compounded the problem. In 2005, 22,601 foreclosure actions were filed in New York, and by 2010 the number of annual filings had increased to 42,356. Hon. Ann Pfau, 2010 Report of the Chief Administrator of the Courts Pursuant to Chapter 507 of the Laws of 2009, at Appendix 3 and 4 (State of New York Unified Court System 2010),available at foreclosure reportnov2010.pdf. During 2009, there were approximately 54,500 mortgage foreclosure proceedings pending in New York courts and during 2010, the number of pending actions increased to over 77,800. Id. at 4. 3

13 html. The wide-spread practice of robo-signing has prompted a number of investigations by governmental authorities, including several by the New York Attorney General to determine the scope of the fraud committed against the courts of this State. In October 2010, the Attorney General sought documentation from four major servicers and demanded that they suspend foreclosure actions until they could ensure the legality and integrity of their procedures. See Office of the New York Attorney General, Attorney General Cuomo Expands Probe of New York Foreclosure Actions, Press Release (Oct. 12, 2010), available at htpp:// In April 2011, Attorney General Schneiderman issued subpoenas to Steven J. Baum P.C., one of the major mortgage foreclosure legal firms in New York State, and a related service provider, Pillar Processing, LLP, requesting information about its foreclosure-related practices, including the documentation that its employees filed with the courts. See Gretchen Morgenson, New York Subpoenas 2 Foreclosure-Related Firms, N.Y. Times (Apr. 8, 2011), at B1, available at 4

14 com/2011/04/09/business/09foreclose.html. The Attorney General recently entered an assurance of discontinuance of its investigation with the principals of these firms that includes prospective relief and a significant payment to the State. Based on its investigation, the Attorney General found that the law firm engaged in improper verification of pleadings in foreclosure cases, failed to conduct due diligence to ensure that plaintiffs had standing to bring foreclosure proceedings, and failed to timely file the attorney affirmation required by AO , which had the effect of delaying formal settlement conferences. Matter of Investigation of Attorney General of N.Y. of Steven J. Baum, P.C., Assurance of Discontinuance (Feb. 16, 2012). The Attorney General also challenged a settlement between Bank of New York Mellon and Bank of America based, in part, on the allegation that Bank of New York Mellon -- the trustee for various pools of residential mortgage-backed securities -- had failed to respond appropriately to robo-signing and other foreclosure abuses. See Verified Pleading in Intervention 27, Doc. # 104, Matter of Bank of New York Mellon, Index No /2011 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Aug. 5, 2011). Most recently, the Attorney General initiated litigation against a number of 5

15 the nation s largest banks and MERSCORP, Inc. alleging that the creation and use of a private national mortgage electronic registry known as "MERS" has resulted in a wide range of deceptive and fraudulent foreclosure filings in New York state and federal bankruptcy courts. The lawsuit specifically asserts that the defendants repeatedly submitted to courts documents containing false and misleading information that made it appear that the foreclosing party had standing to foreclose when in fact it may not have. See Office of the New York Attorney General, AG Schneiderman Announces Major Lawsuit Against Nation s Largest Banks for Deceptive and Fraudulent Use of Electronic Mortgage Registry, Press Release (Feb. 3, 2012), available at Complaint, People v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Index No. 2768/2012 (Sup. Ct., Kings County Feb. 3, 2012). New York s efforts have been part of a nation-wide focus on mortgage foreclosure abuses. Federal officials and the Attorneys General from 49 states, including New York, recently reached a landmark joint federal-state settlement with the nation s largest banks regarding abusive mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices, 6

16 including robo-signing. The investigation that resulted in this settlement began in October 2010 with a primary focus on the use of robo-signed affidavits in foreclosure proceedings. See Philip A. Lehman, Assistant Attorney General, North Carolina Dept. of Justice, Executive Summary of Multistate/Federal Settlement of Foreclosure Misconduct Claims, available at Office of the New York Attorney General, A.G. Schneiderman Secures $136 Million for Struggling New York Homeowners in Mortgage Servicing Agreement, Press Release (Feb. 9, 2012), available at Office of the White House Press Secretary, Remarks by the President on the Housing Settlement (Feb. 9, 2012), available at gov/the-press-office/2012/02/09/remarks-president-housing-settlement. And President Obama recently established a federal-state Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group, co-chaired by Attorney General Schneiderman, which is charged with investigating those individuals and entities that were responsible for the misconduct that contributed to the financial crisis through the pooling and sale of residential mortgage-backed securities. See Office of the New York 7

17 Attorney General, A.G. Schneiderman and Federal Officials Detail Joint Investigation Into Mortgage Crisis, Press Release (Jan. 27, 2012), available at media_center/2012/jan/ jan27a_12. html. Robo-signing and related abuses had also prompted a coordinated review by federal regulators including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision and the FDIC into the policies, procedures, and internal controls of fourteen major mortgage servicers. United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), Mortgage Foreclosures: Documentation Problems Reveal Need for Ongoing Regulatory Oversight, GAO (May 2011), at 30, available at pdf. This review revealed not only problems in the preparation of foreclosure documents, but also inadequate policies, staffing and oversight of internal foreclosure processes. Id. at 26, In their report, the federal regulators concluded that most servers had affidavit signing protocols that expedited the processes for signing foreclosure affidavits without ensuring that the individuals who signed the affidavits personally conducted the review or possessed the level of 8

18 knowledge of the information that they attested to in those affidavits.... Examiners also found the majority of servicers had improper notary practices that failed to conform to state legal requirements. Federal Reserve System, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency & Office of Thrift Supervision, Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices (April 2011), at 8, available at Insufficient staff and the lack of guidance to staff and external law firms regarding affidavit requirements contributed to the preparation and filing of inaccurate affidavits. Id. Regulators also found that the amounts of indebtedness were often inaccurate, most times adversely to the borrower. Id. Finally, the federal regulators found inadequacies in the servicers management and oversight of outside law firms involved in mortgage foreclosure document preparation. Id. at 9. The regulators took formal action against all fourteen major servicers. GAO, Mortgage Foreclosures: Documentation Problems Reveal Need for Ongoing Regulatory Oversight, GAO (May 2011), at

19 B. The Legislature Responded to the Mortgage Foreclosure Crisis With Comprehensive Legislation and a Delegation of Specific Rulemaking Authority to the Chief Administrative Judge. The New York State Legislature responded to the residential mortgage crisis with comprehensive legislation. See New York Laws of 2009, ch. 507; New York Laws of 2008, ch This legislation enhanced consumer protection laws and imposed new regulatory requirements and enforcement measures on mortgage brokers and servicers. The legislation also specifically addressed the procedures applicable to mortgage foreclosure proceedings. See New York Laws of 2009, ch. 507, 1, 1-a, 4, 5-10; New York Laws of 2008, ch. 472, 1, 2, 3, 3-a; Senate Memorandum in Support of S8143A, reprinted in Bill Jacket to Chapter 472 of the Laws of 2008, at 7-9. The provisions governing the mortgage foreclosure judicial process were intended to address the high number of defaults by unrepresented defendants in these proceedings. See Hon. Ann Pfau, 2010 Report of the Chief Administrator of the Courts Pursuant to Chapter 507 of the Laws of 2009 (State of New York Unified Court System 2010). 10

20 The new legislation provides several layers of protection for homeowners involved in foreclosure proceedings. 2 Complaints in proceedings relating to high-cost and subprime home loans must contain specific allegations relating to the plaintiff s ability to institute the action and its compliance with specific Banking Law requirements applicable to such loans. See Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law ( RPAPL ) At least 90 days before commencing foreclosure proceedings, mortgage lenders, assignees and loan servicers must provide homeowners with specific notices describing the availability of housing counseling, foreclosure prevention services, and other information about their legal rights. See RPAPL 1303, When the plaintiff files its request for judicial intervention (RJI), the court must notify the appropriate local housing counseling agencies designated by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal so that those agencies can provide advice and counsel to the defendant homeowner. See CPLR 3408(d). Additionally, the legislation established a mandatory settlement conference procedure. Within 60 2 While the 2008 legislation focused primarily on the subprime and nontraditional loan market, the 2009 legislation extended these protections to foreclosure proceedings involving traditional residential mortgages. See New York Laws of 2009, ch. 507, 1, 1-a, 4, 5-10; Memorandum in Support of Governor s Program Bill #46R, reprinted in Bill Jacket to Chapter 507 of the Laws of

21 days of the filing of proof of service, the court must hold a mandatory settlement conference, to which the plaintiff must bring specified key documents, including: the mortgage and note, or the name, address, and phone number of the legal holder of the mortgage if it is not the plaintiff; payment history; and an itemization of the amounts needed to cure and pay off the loan. See CPLR 3408(a),(e). Defendants who appear at the initial settlement conferences pro se are deemed to have moved for poor person s relief, including assignment of counsel. Id. 3408(b). The purpose of the settlement conference is to evaluate alternatives to foreclosure, including modified payment schedules, payment plans, or other workout options. See CPLR 3408(a). The 2009 legislation authorized the Chief Administrator of the Courts to adopt such additional rules as may be necessary to ensure the just and expeditious processing of all settlement conferences hereunder. New York Laws of 2009, ch. 507, 10-a(1); see also CPLR 3401 (directing the Chief Administrative Judge to adopt rules regulating the hearing of causes ); CPLR 3408(e) (providing that the notice of the settlement conference shall be in a form prescribed by the office of court administration ). To fulfill the mandate of the legislation, 12

22 and consistent with this delegation, the Chief Administrative Judge adopted Rule a of the Uniform Civil Rules for Supreme Court and County Court. See 22 N.Y.C.R.R a. As described below, in December 2010, the Chief Administrative Judge amended Rule a by adding new subsection (f), which requires counsel to comply with affirmation requirements concerning the accuracy of residential foreclosure filings. This brief addresses the Chief Administrative Judge s authority to enact that amendment, and a related administrative order. C. The Chief Administrative Judge Issued an Administrative Order and a Rule to Protect the Integrity of New York Judicial Proceedings. In response to the documented abuses in mortgage foreclosure proceedings, the Chief Administrative Judge issued an administrative order on October 20, 2010, to address the effect of these abuses on the courts. See Administrative Order (AO) (see A1-A9). 3 The order 3 The Administrative Order (AO ) was reissued on March 2011, as Administrative Order (effective Nov. 18, 2010). In response to feedback from the plaintiffs bar, the form affirmation was revised and a companion form affidavit for use by a representative of the plaintiff was made available. The language of the rule is otherwise the same. See AO Copies of the Administrative Orders and accompanying forms are included in an addendum to the Attorney General s brief (see A1-A9). 13

23 was issued at the direction of the Chief Judge and in consultation with the Administrative Board of the Courts. The administrative order directs plaintiff s counsel in residential foreclosure actions to affirm that they have communicated with plaintiff s employees who have reviewed the accuracy of the relevant records and confirmed the accuracy of the court filings, including the summons and complaint. The order also requires counsel to affirm that the documents filed with the court contain no false statements. See AO Consistent with the legislation and court rule governing mandatory settlement conferences, the affirmation must be filed with the court when the RJI is filed. 4 See AO ; 22 N.Y.C.R.R a(b),(c). The administrative order was issued to protect the integrity of the foreclosure process and prevent wrongful foreclosures and to help ensur[e] that the documents judges rely on will be thoroughly examined, accurate, and error-free before any judge is asked to take the 4 In cases where the proceeding was commenced before the November 18, 2010 effective date of the administrative order, but no judgment of foreclosure has been entered as of the effective date, the affirmation is to be filed with the proposed order of reference or with the proposed judgment of foreclosure. In cases where a judgment of foreclosure has been entered but the property has not yet been sold as of the administrative order s effective date, the affirmation is to be filed five days before the scheduled auction, with a copy to be served on the referee. AO

24 drastic step of foreclosure. Hon. Ann Pfau, Chief Administrative Judge, New York Courts First in Country to Institute Filing Requirement to Preserve Integrity of Foreclosure Process (Oct. 20, 2010), available at The filing of the affirmation furthers the Legislature s policy objective by ensuring that the mandatory settlement conference is grounded in accurate and proper documentation that has been made available to the defendant and the court. The new affirmation requirement was subsequently incorporated in the courts rules. In December 2010, the Chief Administrative Judge, with the advice and consent of the Administrative Board of the Courts, amended Rule a of the Uniform Civil Rules for Supreme Court and County Court by adding new subsection (f). This provision authorizes the Chief Administrator of the Courts to continue to require counsel to file affidavits or affirmations confirming the scope of inquiry and the accuracy of papers filed in residential mortgage foreclosure actions. 22 N.Y.C.R.R a(f). The administrative order and rule had an immediate and dramatic effect on residential foreclosure actions when plaintiffs 15

25 counsel discovered that they could not verify the accuracy of foreclosure information with plaintiff s employees, as the administrative order and rule now require. See David Streitfeld, Backlog of Cases Gives a Reprieve on Foreclosures, N.Y. Times (June 19, 2011), available at / 06/ 19/ business/ 19foreclosure.html. According to the Office of Court Administration, an average of over 3,500 RJIs were filed per month in foreclosure proceedings in 2010 before the administrative order was issued, while the average number of such filings during the 12-month period after the order was issued was 775 per month. See Hon. Ann Pfau, 2011 Report of the Chief Administrator of the Courts Pursuant to Chapter 507 of the Laws of 2009, at 2 (State of New York Unified Court System 2011), available at pdf. New York was not the only state to respond to the residential mortgage foreclosure crisis with new administrative orders and court rules designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process and the accuracy of filed documents. For example, the New Jersey court system has issued an administrative order that is substantively identical to 16

26 New York s. Administrative Order of the New Jersey Acting Administrative Director of the Courts (Dec. 10, 2010) (A10-A27). 5 Local courts in a number of states have also issued similar directives, see, e.g., Revised Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Affidavit Policy of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (Dec. 22, 2010) (A28-A29), and other state judicial systems approached the same problem from different perspectives, see, e.g., Order of the Chief Justice of South Carolina (May 2, 2011) (A30-A34) (requiring notice of loan modification/loss mitigation procedures in residential foreclosure proceedings); Maryland Rules of Procedure, Rule (2011) (A40- A41) (authorizing courts in foreclosure proceedings to screen petition and review accuracy of affidavits). D. Supreme Court Invalidates Administrative Order and Rule a(f). 1. Proceedings Below Plaintiff LaSalle Bank commenced this mortgage foreclosure proceeding in April 2008 against defendants James F. Pace and Linda Pace seeking to recover more than $1,330,000 secured by a mortgage on 5 Copies of the administrative orders and court rules from other jurisdictions are included in an Addendum to this brief. 17

27 residential property located in Hampton Bays, New York (R ). After the defendants filed an answer with counter-claims, in May 2010 LaSalle Bank moved for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 and RPAPL 1321, and for appointment of a receiver to compute the amount due if summary judgment was awarded (R , 25-30). The defendants argued that summary judgment was improper for a number of procedural and substantive reasons, including that plaintiff s counsel had not filed the attorney affirmation required by Administrative Order and Rule a(f) (R. 207). The sur-reply papers submitted on behalf of the plaintiff bank included an attorney affirmation of the type required by AO (R ). 2. Decision of Supreme Court Granting LaSalle Bank Summary Judgment and Ordering Appointment of a Receiver. In a memorandum decision dated February 22, 2011, and an accompanying order, Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.) granted the motion of plaintiff LaSalle Bank ( LaSalle ) for summary judgment and referred the matter to a referee to compute the amount owed (R. 9-16, 17-20). For two reasons, the court rejected the Pace defendants argument that the motion should be denied based on 18

28 LaSalle s failure to provide the attorney affirmation with its motion for summary judgment and proposed order of reference. First, the court held that the administrative order did not require LaSalle to file the attorney affirmation with the proposed order of reference. In this case, which was pending when the administrative order was issued, the court reasoned that the order does not require the filing of the affirmation on motions for accelerated judgments that are submitted in conjunction with orders of reference, as the affirmation may be supplied on the motion for the judgment of foreclosure of sale (R. 11). Second, the court determined that the administrative order was not a permissible exercise of the rulemaking authority vested in the Chief Administrative Judge (R. 11). On this point, the court held that the administrative order and rule were not administrative in nature, and therefore not authorized by the Chief Administrative Judge s constitutional authority to adopt rules relating to the efficient and orderly transaction of business in the trial courts (R. 13). In reaching this conclusion, the court viewed the affirmation requirement as imposing additional, substantive requirements on plaintiffs seeking foreclosure. 19

29 Accordingly, Supreme Court determined that the affirmation requirement regulated the practice and procedure of the courts and, because the court found the Legislature had not delegated authority to the Chief Administrative Judge to adopt this requirement, it was not authorized under the Chief Administrative Judge s delegated authority (R ). The court also concluded that the rule and order are unauthorized based on the court s conclusion that the attorney affirmation requirement affects the legal relationship between the parties to a foreclosure proceeding. Here, the court relied not only on its view that the administrative order required the plaintiff to submit additional proof of its entitlement to foreclosure, but also on evidence that there had been a dramatic decrease in the successful prosecution of foreclosure proceedings since the order was adopted (R. 14). For these same reasons, the court found the affirmation requirement improperly diminished the court s constitutional jurisdiction to adjudicate foreclosure disputes (R. 15). Accordingly, the court held that the administrative order and rule exceed the rulemaking authority of the Chief Administrative Judge (R. 15). 20

30 Following the Paces appeal of the order granting plaintiff summary judgment and referring the matter to a referee, the Attorney General was notified of the constitutional challenge presented by this appeal. The Attorney General intervenes in this proceeding pursuant to Executive Law 71 and CPLR 1012(b)(1) to defend the constitutionality of the administrative order and rule. In its brief, LaSalle asserts that Supreme Court s conclusion regarding the constitutionality of the order was not necessary to the court s holding that LaSalle was entitled to summary judgment. LaSalle argues that the court held that the order did not require LaSalle to submit an attorney affirmation until later in the proceeding, and thus the court s further conclusion that the order was not authorized was dicta. LaSalle Br. at 6-7. In this brief, we express no view whether Supreme Court s conclusion that the order and the rule were not authorized should be characterized as holding or dicta. We submit this brief to explain that, however characterized, Supreme 21

31 Court s constitutional conclusion was wrong, and should not be adopted by this Court. 6 ARGUMENT THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WAS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AND THE RULE PURSUANT TO HER PLENARY CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OVER ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND PURSUANT TO A VALID DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY BY THE LEGISLATURE The Chief Administrative Judge, who is appointed by the Chief Judge of the State with the advice and consent of the Administrative 6 Although this brief does not express a concluded judgment whether Supreme Court erred in finding that the administrative order did not require the filing of the affirmation in this case until a later stage of the proceeding, we observe that this finding is contrary to the overall purpose and intent of the provisions of the administrative order that address when the affirmation is to be filed, see footnote 4 supra. When read as a whole, these provisions evince an intention that the affirmation should be filed at an early point in the litigation. Thus, in cases brought after the order became effective, the affirmation is to be filed with the RJI so that the accuracy of the documents may be affirmed before judicial oversight commences. In cases such as this case, which were pending on the effective date of the administrative order and in which no judgment of foreclosure had yet been entered, the affirmation shall be filed "at the time of filing either the proposed order of reference or the proposed judgment of foreclosure." Where there is contemplated both a proposed order of reference and a subsequent proposed judgment of foreclosure, the purpose of the administrative order is better served by having the affirmation filed with the proposed order of reference before the court determines whether the final steps toward foreclosure should be taken. Under this view, a plaintiff bank seeking summary judgment and an order of reference should file the attorney affirmation when it submits its proposed order of reference with its motion for summary judgment. 22

32 Board of the Courts, 7 has two sources of authority relevant here: plenary constitutional authority to supervise the administration and operation of the unified court system, N.Y. Const. Art. 6, 28(b), and authority delegated by the Legislature pursuant to its constitutional powers with respect to regulation of the jurisdiction and proceedings of the courts, N.Y. Const. Art. 6, 30; Judiciary Law 211(1)(b), 212(2)(d); New York Laws of 2009, ch. 507, 10-a(1). Each of these sources of authority independently supports the Chief Administrative Judge s power to issue the administrative order and rule at issue on this appeal. A. The Chief Administrative Judge s Order Requiring the Attorney Affirmation Was a Valid Exercise of Her Plenary Administrative Powers. The New York Constitution directly authorizes the Chief Administrative Judge, on behalf of the Chief Judge, to supervise the administration and operation of the unified court system. N.Y. Const. Art. 6, 28. In exercising her constitutional administrative functions, the Chief Administrative Judge has the powers and duties delegated to 7 The Administrative Board of the Courts is comprised of the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, who serves as its chair, and the presiding justices of the four appellate divisions. N.Y. Const. Art. 6 28(a); Judiciary Law 210(2). Before the 1978 amendment of the New York Constitution, the Administrative Board of the Courts served in the role of chief administrator of the court system. 23

33 her by the Chief Judge and any additional powers and duties provided by law. Id. The Chief Judge has delegated to the Chief Administrative Judge full authority to supervise the administration and operation of the unified court system, including authority to adopt administrative rules for the efficient and orderly transaction of business in the trial courts. 22 N.Y.C.R.R. 80.1(a) and (b)(6). With respect to administrative functions, the Chief Administrator s powers are complete. Matter of Met Council, Inc. v. Crosson, 84 N.Y.2d 328, 335 (1994); Matter of Scoralick v. Milonas, 207 A.D.2d 159, 160 (3d Dep t), lv. denied, 86 N.Y.2d 707 (1995). When administrative authority is exercised in conformity with the consultation and approval requirements, [Unified Court System] administrators possess broad express and implied powers to take whatever actions are necessary for the proper discharge of their responsibilities. People v. Correa, 15 N.Y.3d 213, 223 (2010). [T]he Legislature could not by statute divest the Chief Administrator of [her] [constitutional] authority... to supervise the administration and operation of the Unified Court System on behalf of the Chief Judge. 24

34 Levenson v. Lippman, 4 N.Y.3d 280, 291 (2005); see Matter of Met Council, Inc. v. Crosson, 84 N.Y.2d at 335. As the Court of Appeals has explained, in this context the term administrative is elastic; whether an act is administrative depends on the context in which it is exercised. Corkum v. Bartlett, 46 N.Y.2d 424, 429 (1979). Courts have considered the following matters administrative powers vested by the Constitution in the Chief Judge and Chief Administrative Judge: the establishment of personnel classification plans for court employees, id., the appointment of judicial and non-judicial court personnel, Matter of Met Council, Inc. v. Crosson, 84 N.Y.2d at 335; Matter of Scoralick v. Milonas, 207 A.D.2d at 160; the transfer of cases among courts, People v. Correa, 15 N.Y.3d at 224, and the establishment of a process for administrative review of assigned counsel fee awards, Levenson v. Lippman, 4 N.Y.3d at Here, the Chief Administrative Judge was performing an administrative act in issuing the administrative order requiring an affirmation from plaintiff s attorney establishing that he performed due diligence in determining that a representative of the plaintiff had reviewed the accuracy of the information in the complaint, 25

35 accompanying papers, and any affidavits, and in promulgating a rule authorizing the affirmation requirement. The administrative order and rule govern the administration and operation of the unified court system, N.Y. Const. Art. 6 28(b), and establish a policy for the efficient and orderly transaction of business in the trial courts, 22 N.Y.C.R.R. 80.1(b)(6). In particular, the administrative order and the rule further the purpose of the legislatively required settlement conference in residential mortgage foreclosure actions by establishing an administrative process whereby plaintiff confirms the accuracy of the foreclosure documents, including the plaintiff s chain of title to the mortgage, at an early stage before the settlement conference begins. The Legislature responded to the residential mortgage foreclosure crisis by creating a new process to govern foreclosure proceedings, including the right to a prompt settlement conference and notice of the availability to foreclosure defendants of counseling assistance, see New York Laws of 2008, ch. 472; New York Laws of 2009, ch The administrative order and rule are designed to administer the process that the Legislature established. The affirmation requirement helps to 26

36 ensure that the courts are overseeing settlement conferences in cases that in fact warrant judicial intervention, that the documents forming the basis of the settlement conference are accurate and truthful, and that the settlement conferences serve the functions that the Legislature intended. Additionally, requiring plaintiffs to confirm the accuracy of the underlying foreclosure facts and documents during the initial stages of the litigation promotes judicial efficiency. Settlement conferences are commenced in only those cases where plaintiff has confirmed its factual and legal basis to seek foreclosure. This also conserves judicial time and resources that might otherwise be expended in reviewing and deciding motions to dismiss if factual inaccuracies in the foreclosure documents are later discovered. Thus, the administrative order and rule further the legislative purpose and promote the efficiency of the courts in addressing the identified problem. Cf. Levenson v. Lippman, 4 N.Y.3d at 291 (concluding that rule establishing administrative review of assigned counsel fee awards filled gap left by legislation establishing assigned counsel fees). 27

37 Moreover, the affirmation requirement is similar to many other rules promulgated by the Chief Administrative Judge requiring the filing of an affirmation and governing administration of proceedings in the trial courts. See, e.g., 22 N.Y.C.R.R (requiring that an attorney s affirmation accompany a motion relating to disclosure or a bill of particular); id (requiring that an affirmation or affidavit accompany the note of issue and certificate of readiness in certain cases); id (requiring the filing of a sworn permanency report in family court permanency hearings); id (requiring the filing of an attorney s affirmation where a proceeding to terminate parental rights of a foster child is brought before a different judge than the one who presided over the last related proceeding); id (same, adoption); see generally id a(b) (attorney s or party s signature on a paper certifies that, based on reasonable inquiry, contentions therein are not frivolous); id (c)(3) (defining frivolous conduct to include the assertion of false material facts); 22 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 1200, rule 4.1 (prohibiting attorneys from knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a third person in the course of representing a client). The due diligence requirements in the administrative order and rule at 28

38 issue here are not different in kind or extent from similar requirements that have been part of the administration of the court system for years. Further, contrary to the conclusion of the court below, requiring the attorney s affirmation in residential foreclosure proceedings governs the administration of proceedings because it does not impose any additional procedural or substantive requirements on the parties, alter the procedural rules governing these proceedings, or change the burden of proof. The administrative order and rule do not require the plaintiff mortgage holder to submit additional information to prove its case. Rather, the attorney must affirm simply that the plaintiff has reviewed the documents that it relies on to establish its right to foreclosure and confirmed their accuracy. This does not change the quantum or burden of proof, or otherwise alter the procedure of a foreclosure action. In the absence of the affirmation requirement, the plaintiff would have had no right to submit false or inaccurate information. Finally, the purpose of the affirmation fits squarely within the Chief Administrative Judge s obligation to protect the integrity of the judicial process and to prevent continuation of the fraud that was being perpetrated upon the court. The acknowledged wide-spread practice of 29

39 robo-signing affidavits by mortgage servicers in residential foreclosure proceedings demonstrated that existing requirements regarding attestations as to truth and accuracy of information in pleadings and affidavits were insufficient to protect the integrity of the courts. Plaintiffs in residential mortgage foreclosure actions were routinely flouting the requirement that the individual signing pleadings and affidavits attest to the truth and accuracy of the information contained therein -- in many cases the signer was unfamiliar with the underlying facts and documents or had not even reviewed the affidavit he was signing. Thus, the attorney affirmation requirement was imposed as an additional check on existing requirements regarding the accuracy and truthfulness of documents submitted to the court. The administration of justice demands that foreclosure proceedings are based on truthful and accurate pleadings, and that the public perceive this is so. The administrative order and rule constitute a minimal precaution intended to guard against the well-documented proliferation of neglect and fraud. Accordingly, the administrative order and the rule were authorized by 30

40 the Chief Administrative Judge s plenary constitutional authority to supervise the administration of the court system. B. The Chief Administrative Judge s Order Was Also a Proper Exercise of Authority Delegated by the Legislature. The Constitution authorizes the Legislature to regulate court practice and procedure and permits the Legislature to delegate its regulatory authority to a trial court, the appellate division, or the Chief Administrative Judge. N.Y. Const. art. 6, 30. Thus, while the Chief Judge and Chief Administrative Judge exercise plenary, complete authority over the administration of the courts, see Point A above, the Chief Administrative Judge may also exercise authority to regulate practice and procedure that the Legislature has delegated by statute. In this case, the administrative order and the rule are supported both by the broad delegation of authority contained in the Judiciary Law and by the specific grant of authority contained in the 2009 foreclosure legislation. 1. The Judiciary Law and 2009 foreclosure legislation authorize the order and the rule. In the Judiciary Law, the Legislature delegated broad authority to the Chief Judge regarding court practice and procedure. Pursuant to 31

41 Judiciary Law 211(1)(b), the Chief Judge may adopt rules and orders regulating practice and procedure in the courts, subject to the reserved power of the [L]egislature provided for in section thirty of article six of the constitution. See also Judiciary Law 212(2)(d) (authorizing the Chief Administrative Judge to adopt rules and orders regulating practice in the courts as authorized by statute ). The administrative order and the rule regulate court practice and procedure within the meaning of sections 211 and 212 of the Judiciary Law. They require simply that the plaintiff s counsel affirm the accuracy of the pleadings and documents, and file the affirmation at the time that the RJI is filed. The Court of Appeals has recognized similar requirements as procedural for this purpose. See Matter of A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v. Lezak, 69 N.Y.2d 1, 6 (1986) (recognizing that, in the exercise of their delegated authority to regulate practice and procedure, courts may proscribe frivolous conduct and impose sanctions). In addition to the broad general grant of authority contained in the Judiciary Law, the Legislature has specifically authorized the Chief Administrative Judge to adopt rules to implement the mortgage foreclosure settlement conference process. In establishing the 32

Justice. Plaintiff, DECISION & ORDER - against - Cal. No. 32 WAYNE RAMJIT, et. al., Index No /08 Defendants.

Justice. Plaintiff, DECISION & ORDER - against - Cal. No. 32 WAYNE RAMJIT, et. al., Index No /08 Defendants. At an IAS Term, Part 27 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at Civic Center, Brooklyn, New York, on the 12th day of December 2011 P R

More information

Credit Suisse Financial Corporation, Plaintiff, against

Credit Suisse Financial Corporation, Plaintiff, against 1 of 5 8/15/2012 9:59 PM [*1] Credit Suisse Fin. Corp. v Lisvonsce 2012 NY Slip Op 22225 Decided on August 14, 2012 Supreme Court, Kings County Battaglia, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau

More information

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v McLean-Chance 2013 NY Slip Op 32606(U) October 17, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 11828/2012 Judge:

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v McLean-Chance 2013 NY Slip Op 32606(U) October 17, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 11828/2012 Judge: Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v McLean-Chance 2013 NY Slip Op 32606(U) October 17, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 11828/2012 Judge: Robert J. McDonald Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,

More information

Defendant answers as follows:

Defendant answers as follows: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF, Plaintiff INDEX NO: -against- VERIFIED ANSWER TO FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT, Defendant. Defendant answers as follows: General Denial I plead the following Defenses

More information

Knights of Columbus v Bank of N.Y. Mellon 2015 NY Slip Op 31362(U) July 10, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2011 Judge:

Knights of Columbus v Bank of N.Y. Mellon 2015 NY Slip Op 31362(U) July 10, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2011 Judge: Knights of Columbus v Bank of N.Y. Mellon 2015 NY Slip Op 31362(U) July 10, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 651442/2011 Judge: Saliann Scarpulla Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,

More information

John W. McConnell, Esq. Counsel Office of Court Administration 25 Beaver St., 11th Floor New York, NY 10004

John W. McConnell, Esq. Counsel Office of Court Administration 25 Beaver St., 11th Floor New York, NY 10004 COMMITTEE ON CIVIL COURT GINA M. CALABRESE CHAIR ST. JOHN S UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 8000 UTOPIA PARKWAY JAMAICA, NY 11439 Phone: (718) 990-1848 Fax: (718) 990-1616 calabreg@stjohns.edu ANDREW GOLDBERG

More information

U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Bethelmie 2012 NY Slip Op 31773(U) June 29, 2012 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 15315/2009 Judge: Robert J.

U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Bethelmie 2012 NY Slip Op 31773(U) June 29, 2012 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 15315/2009 Judge: Robert J. U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Bethelmie 2012 NY Slip Op 31773(U) June 29, 2012 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 15315/2009 Judge: Robert J. McDonald Republished from New York State Unified Court System's

More information

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v Jacob 2016 NY Slip Op 32095(U) September 6, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 20755/2013 Judge: Robert J.

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v Jacob 2016 NY Slip Op 32095(U) September 6, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 20755/2013 Judge: Robert J. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v Jacob 2016 NY Slip Op 32095(U) September 6, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 20755/2013 Judge: Robert J. McDonald Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,

More information

BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v Douglin 2013 NY Slip Op 31398(U) June 28, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 18002/2010 Judge: Sidney F.

BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v Douglin 2013 NY Slip Op 31398(U) June 28, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 18002/2010 Judge: Sidney F. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v Douglin 2013 NY Slip Op 31398(U) June 28, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 18002/2010 Judge: Sidney F. Strauss Republished from New York State Unified Court

More information

Standing Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals

Standing Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals Standing Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act 2002-142 Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I--PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS Subpart

More information

Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R v Tsimmer 2017 NY Slip Op 30570(U) March 23, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /15 Judge: Barbara

Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R v Tsimmer 2017 NY Slip Op 30570(U) March 23, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /15 Judge: Barbara Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R v Tsimmer 2017 NY Slip Op 30570(U) March 23, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 850230/15 Judge: Barbara Jaffe Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013

More information

Department of Labor Relations TABLE OF CONTENTS. Connecticut State Labor Relations Act. Article I. Description of Organization and Definitions

Department of Labor Relations TABLE OF CONTENTS. Connecticut State Labor Relations Act. Article I. Description of Organization and Definitions Relations TABLE OF CONTENTS Connecticut State Labor Relations Act Article I Description of Organization and Definitions Creation and authority....................... 31-101- 1 Functions.................................

More information

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Stevens 2016 NY Slip Op 32404(U) December 7, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2008 Judge:

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Stevens 2016 NY Slip Op 32404(U) December 7, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2008 Judge: Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Stevens 2016 NY Slip Op 32404(U) December 7, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 104120/2008 Judge: Manuel J. Mendez Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,

More information

U.S. Bank, N.A. v Campbell 2015 NY Slip Op 30390(U) March 16, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 11601/2012 Judge: Robert J.

U.S. Bank, N.A. v Campbell 2015 NY Slip Op 30390(U) March 16, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 11601/2012 Judge: Robert J. U.S. Bank, N.A. v Campbell 2015 NY Slip Op 30390(U) March 16, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 11601/2012 Judge: Robert J. McDonald Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY

More information

LaSalle Bank, N.A. v Rodriguez 2011 NY Slip Op 31086(U) April 28, 2011 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 5129/07 Judge: Allan B.

LaSalle Bank, N.A. v Rodriguez 2011 NY Slip Op 31086(U) April 28, 2011 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 5129/07 Judge: Allan B. LaSalle Bank, N.A. v Rodriguez 2011 NY Slip Op 31086(U) April 28, 2011 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 5129/07 Judge: Allan B. Weiss Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts

More information

HSBC Bank USA v Murphy 2016 NY Slip Op 30850(U) May 3, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: /2015 Judge: David Elliot Cases posted

HSBC Bank USA v Murphy 2016 NY Slip Op 30850(U) May 3, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: /2015 Judge: David Elliot Cases posted HSBC Bank USA v Murphy 2016 NY Slip Op 30850(U) May 3, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 701215/2015 Judge: David Elliot Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U),

More information

Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Nassau IAS Trial Part 22 Part Rules Updated: January 25, 2018

Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Nassau IAS Trial Part 22 Part Rules Updated: January 25, 2018 Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Nassau IAS Trial Part 22 Part Rules Updated: January 25, 2018 Justice: Law Secretary: Secretary: Part Clerk: Hon. Sharon M.J. Gianelli, J.S.C. Karen L.

More information

FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 03/22/ :11 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/22/2016

FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 03/22/ :11 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/22/2016 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 03/22/2016 07:11 PM INDEX NO. 52297/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/22/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER - - - - - - - - - -

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND R U L E S O R D E R This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure having submitted its One Hundred Sixty-Fourth Report to the Court recommending

More information

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Merrill Lynch Mtge. Lending, Inc NY Slip Op 32257(U) November 3, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Merrill Lynch Mtge. Lending, Inc NY Slip Op 32257(U) November 3, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Merrill Lynch Mtge. Lending, Inc. 2016 NY Slip Op 32257(U) November 3, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 652727/14 Judge: Marcy Friedman Cases posted with a "30000"

More information

FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 06/03/ :22 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2015

FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 06/03/ :22 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2015 FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2015 03:22 PM INDEX NO. 135553/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF RICHMOND JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,

More information

HSBC Bank USA v Bhatti 2016 NY Slip Op 30167(U) January 29, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 21162/2013 Judge: Robert J.

HSBC Bank USA v Bhatti 2016 NY Slip Op 30167(U) January 29, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 21162/2013 Judge: Robert J. HSBC Bank USA v Bhatti 2016 NY Slip Op 30167(U) January 29, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 21162/2013 Judge: Robert J. McDonald Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

More information

FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/11/ :53 AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2018

FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/11/ :53 AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU CHNY l216 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Index No. 610241/2017 -vs- Plaintiff, ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

More information

Citibank, N.A. v MacPherson 2014 NY Slip Op 31529(U) February 20, 2014 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: 32763/2007 Judge: Thomas F.

Citibank, N.A. v MacPherson 2014 NY Slip Op 31529(U) February 20, 2014 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: 32763/2007 Judge: Thomas F. Citibank, N.A. v MacPherson 2014 NY Slip Op 31529(U) February 20, 2014 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: 32763/2007 Judge: Thomas F. Whelan Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

More information

Quicken Loans Inc. v Diaz-Montez 2015 NY Slip Op 31285(U) March 13, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: /2014 Judge: Robert J.

Quicken Loans Inc. v Diaz-Montez 2015 NY Slip Op 31285(U) March 13, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: /2014 Judge: Robert J. Quicken Loans Inc. v Diaz-Montez 2015 NY Slip Op 31285(U) March 13, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 700505/2014 Judge: Robert J. McDonald Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,

More information

Hossain v Hossain 2016 NY Slip Op 30855(U) May 4, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 17142/13 Judge: Allan B. Weiss Cases posted with a

Hossain v Hossain 2016 NY Slip Op 30855(U) May 4, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 17142/13 Judge: Allan B. Weiss Cases posted with a Hossain v Hossain 2016 NY Slip Op 30855(U) May 4, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 17142/13 Judge: Allan B. Weiss Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U),

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS GLENNA BRYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION April 10, 2014 9:05 a.m. v No. 313279 Oakland Circuit Court JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, LC No. 2012-124595-CH Defendant-Appellee.

More information

HOPP Webinar: Is it too Late?

HOPP Webinar: Is it too Late? HOPP Webinar: Is it too Late? WHAT TO DO WITH HOMEOWNERS FACING FORECLOSURE WHO SEEK HELP AFTER IT S TOO LATE. DATE/TIME: TRAINERS: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2018 12:00 PM-1:00 PM GAYLE E. HARTZ & DEBRA

More information

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: March 28, 2019 525526 JACOB HERRMANN, v Appellant, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Respondent.

More information

MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE IN SUPPORT OF SANCTIONS AGAINST J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE IN SUPPORT OF SANCTIONS AGAINST J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------- x : In re : : Hearing Date: January 7, 2010 Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. Case No. 08-14106

More information

US Code (Unofficial compilation from the Legal Information Institute) TITLE 12 - BANKS AND BANKING CHAPTER 1 THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY

US Code (Unofficial compilation from the Legal Information Institute) TITLE 12 - BANKS AND BANKING CHAPTER 1 THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY US Code (Unofficial compilation from the Legal Information Institute) TITLE 12 - BANKS AND BANKING CHAPTER 1 THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY Please Note: This compilation of the US Code, current as of

More information

Rhode Island False Claims Act

Rhode Island False Claims Act Rhode Island False Claims Act 9-1.1-1. Name of act. [Effective until February 15, 2008.] This chapter may be cited as the State False Claims Act. 9-1.1-2. Definitions. [Effective until February 15, 2008.]

More information

Don t Leave Without Your Ethics. Christopher A. Guetti, Flink Smith Law LLC

Don t Leave Without Your Ethics. Christopher A. Guetti, Flink Smith Law LLC Don t Leave Without Your Ethics Christopher A. Guetti, Flink Smith Law LLC Self-Serving and Sham Affidavits in New York Self-Serving Affidavit Plaintiff cannot create an issue of fact defeating summary

More information

UNIFORM BUDGETING AND ACCOUNTING ACT Act 2 of The People of the State of Michigan enact:

UNIFORM BUDGETING AND ACCOUNTING ACT Act 2 of The People of the State of Michigan enact: UNIFORM BUDGETING AND ACCOUNTING ACT Act 2 of 1968 AN ACT to provide for the formulation and establishment of uniform charts of accounts and reports in local units of government; to define local units

More information

New Jersey False Claims Act

New Jersey False Claims Act New Jersey False Claims Act (N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:32C-1 to 18) i 2A:32C-1. Short title Sections 1 through 15 and sections 17 and 18 [C.2A:32C-1 through C.2A:32C-17] of this act shall be known and may be

More information

Ch. 41 MEDICAL ASSISTANCE APPEAL PROCEDURES 55 CHAPTER 41. MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDER APPEAL PROCEDURES GENERAL PROVISIONS

Ch. 41 MEDICAL ASSISTANCE APPEAL PROCEDURES 55 CHAPTER 41. MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDER APPEAL PROCEDURES GENERAL PROVISIONS Ch. 41 MEDICAL ASSISTANCE APPEAL PROCEDURES 55 CHAPTER 41. MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDER APPEAL PROCEDURES Sec. 41.1. Scope. 41.2. Construction and application. 41.3. Definitions. 41.4. Amendments to regulation.

More information

LaSalle Bank N.A. v Browd 2015 NY Slip Op 30833(U) May 8, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 18563/08 Judge: Howard G.

LaSalle Bank N.A. v Browd 2015 NY Slip Op 30833(U) May 8, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 18563/08 Judge: Howard G. LaSalle Bank N.A. v Browd 2015 NY Slip Op 30833(U) May 8, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 18563/08 Judge: Howard G. Lane Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U),

More information

Colorado Medicaid False Claims Act

Colorado Medicaid False Claims Act Colorado Medicaid False Claims Act (C.R.S. 25.5-4-303.5 to 310) i 25.5-4-303.5. Short title This section and sections 25.5-4-304 to 25.5-4-310 shall be known and may be cited as the "Colorado Medicaid

More information

District of Columbia False Claims Act

District of Columbia False Claims Act District of Columbia False Claims Act 2-308.03. Claims by District government against contractor (a) (1) All claims by the District government against a contractor arising under or relating to a contract

More information

Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Victor Horsford Realty Corp NY Slip Op 30077(U) January 20, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:

Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Victor Horsford Realty Corp NY Slip Op 30077(U) January 20, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Victor Horsford Realty Corp. 015 NY Slip Op 30077(U) January 0, 015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 65037/014 Judge: Peter H. Moulton Cases posted with a "30000"

More information

Bank of Am., N.A. v Ammar 2018 NY Slip Op 33038(U) November 29, 2018 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 20847/2013 Judge: Howard H.

Bank of Am., N.A. v Ammar 2018 NY Slip Op 33038(U) November 29, 2018 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 20847/2013 Judge: Howard H. Bank of Am., N.A. v Ammar 2018 NY Slip Op 33038(U) November 29, 2018 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 20847/2013 Judge: Howard H. Heckman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013

More information

Bank of Am., N.A. v Faracco 2010 NY Slip Op 31439(U) May 28, 2010 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 3516/2008 Judge: Joseph Farneti

Bank of Am., N.A. v Faracco 2010 NY Slip Op 31439(U) May 28, 2010 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 3516/2008 Judge: Joseph Farneti Bank of Am., N.A. v Faracco 2010 NY Slip Op 31439(U) May 28, 2010 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 3516/2008 Judge: Joseph Farneti Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts

More information

TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK:

TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO PRACTICE AS AN ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR-AT-LAW IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION QUESTIONNAIRE (Please see the General Instructions for guidance on filing complete

More information

MARYLAND FALSE CLAIMS ACT. SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND, That the Laws of Maryland read as follows:

MARYLAND FALSE CLAIMS ACT. SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND, That the Laws of Maryland read as follows: MARYLAND FALSE CLAIMS ACT SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND, That the Laws of Maryland read as follows: 8 101. (a) In this title the following words have the meanings indicated.

More information

Beneficial Homeowner Serv. Corp. v Gastaldo 2013 NY Slip Op 33027(U) December 3, 2013 Supreme Court, Richmond County Docket Number: /10 Judge:

Beneficial Homeowner Serv. Corp. v Gastaldo 2013 NY Slip Op 33027(U) December 3, 2013 Supreme Court, Richmond County Docket Number: /10 Judge: Beneficial Homeowner Serv. Corp. v Gastaldo 2013 NY Slip Op 33027(U) December 3, 2013 Supreme Court, Richmond County Docket Number: 131124/10 Judge: Thomas P. Aliotta Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,

More information

THE FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT 31 U.S.C

THE FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT 31 U.S.C THE FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733 Reflecting proposed amendments in S. 386, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, as passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on May 6, 2009

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. Plaintiff, Defendants.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. Plaintiff, Defendants. KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California FRANCES T. GRUNDER Senior Assistant Attorney General MICHELE VAN GELDEREN Supervising Deputy Attorney General WILLIAM R. PLETCHER (SBN 1) BERNARD A. ESKANDARI

More information

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Arthur 2013 NY Slip Op 32625(U) October 23, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2010 Judge: Cynthia S.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Arthur 2013 NY Slip Op 32625(U) October 23, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2010 Judge: Cynthia S. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Arthur 2013 NY Slip Op 32625(U) October 23, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 104611/2010 Judge: Cynthia S. Kern Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013

More information

New Jersey State Board of Accountancy Laws

New Jersey State Board of Accountancy Laws 45:2B-42 Short title 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Accountancy Act of 1997." L.1997,c.259,s.1. 45:2B-43 Findings, declarations relative to practice of accounting 2. The Legislature

More information

U.S. National Association, as Trustee for CSMC Mortgage- Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series (CSMC )., Plaintiff, against

U.S. National Association, as Trustee for CSMC Mortgage- Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series (CSMC )., Plaintiff, against Page 1 of 8 [*1] U.S. Natl. Assn. v Said 2013 NY Slip Op 50101(U) Decided on January 7, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Siegal, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary

More information

U.S. Bank N.A. v Bastidas 2015 NY Slip Op 32521(U) December 16, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 173/10 Judge: Darrell L.

U.S. Bank N.A. v Bastidas 2015 NY Slip Op 32521(U) December 16, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 173/10 Judge: Darrell L. U.S. Bank N.A. v Bastidas 2015 NY Slip Op 32521(U) December 16, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 173/10 Judge: Darrell L. Gavrin Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

More information

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA dba AMERICA'S SERVICING COMPANY, v. SANDRA CRESPO, NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Plaintiff-Respondent, Defendant-Appellant. PER CURIAM Submitted:

More information

District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility. Board Rules

District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility. Board Rules District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility Board Rules Adopted June 23, 1983 Effective July 1, 1983 This edition represents a complete revision of the Board Rules. All previous

More information

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Sposato 2013 NY Slip Op 30034(U) January 7, 2013 Sup Ct, Richmond County Docket Number: /08 Judge: Joseph J.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Sposato 2013 NY Slip Op 30034(U) January 7, 2013 Sup Ct, Richmond County Docket Number: /08 Judge: Joseph J. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Sposato 2013 NY Slip Op 30034(U) January 7, 2013 Sup Ct, Richmond County Docket Number: 101504/08 Judge: Joseph J. Maltese Republished from New York State Unified Court System's

More information

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Kahya 2013 NY Slip Op 33091(U) November 27, 2013 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: Judge: Jr.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Kahya 2013 NY Slip Op 33091(U) November 27, 2013 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: Judge: Jr. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Kahya 2013 NY Slip Op 33091(U) November 27, 2013 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 10482-2009 Judge: Jr., John J.J. Jones Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP f/k/a COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, v. KENT GUBRUD, Appellee Appellant : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA

More information

Estates of Hallet's Cove Homeowners Assoc. Inc. v Fakir 2016 NY Slip Op 32083(U) July 22, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 10962/2014

Estates of Hallet's Cove Homeowners Assoc. Inc. v Fakir 2016 NY Slip Op 32083(U) July 22, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 10962/2014 Estates of Hallet's Cove Homeowners Assoc. Inc. v Fakir 2016 NY Slip Op 32083(U) July 22, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 10962/2014 Judge: Allan B. Weiss Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,

More information

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/04/2014 INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/04/2014

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/04/2014 INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/04/2014 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/04/2014 INDEX NO. 508172/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/04/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ------------------------------------------------------------X

More information

IN TH COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

IN TH COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : IN TH COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO TAMARA TURNER 20526 BYRON ROAD SHAKER HEIGHTS, OH 44122 And PHILLIP TURNER 20526 BYRON ROAD SHAKER HEIGHTS, OH 44122 And MARY SWEENEY 315 OVERLOOK PARK

More information

JUDGMENT Index No.: RJI No.:

JUDGMENT Index No.: RJI No.: PRESENT: HON. THOMAS J. McNAMARA Acting Justice STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ALBANY ROBERT L. SCHULZ, et ai., -against- Plaintiffs, JUDGMENT Index No.: 1232-13 RJI No.: 01-13-109432 NEW YORK

More information

International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers v Bank of New York Mellon 2014 NY Slip Op 30177(U) January 17, 2014 Supreme Court, New York

International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers v Bank of New York Mellon 2014 NY Slip Op 30177(U) January 17, 2014 Supreme Court, New York International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers v Bank of New York Mellon 2014 NY Slip Op 30177(U) January 17, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 653441/2012 Judge: Marcy S. Friedman

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Case 1:11-cv-00760-BMK Document 47 Filed 08/23/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 722 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII STEVEN D. WARD, vs. Plaintiff, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

More information

Filed 8/ 25/ 16 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Filed 8/ 25/ 16 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS Filed 8/ 25/ 16 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered

More information

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: January 3, 2019 526630 U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST, Respondent,

More information

Onewest Bank, FSB v Kallergis 2013 NY Slip Op 31990(U) July 31, 2013 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 31330/2009 Judge: James J.

Onewest Bank, FSB v Kallergis 2013 NY Slip Op 31990(U) July 31, 2013 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 31330/2009 Judge: James J. Onewest Bank, FSB v Kallergis 2013 NY Slip Op 31990(U) July 31, 2013 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 31330/2009 Judge: James J. Golia Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 118,378. In the Matter of LANCE M. HALEY, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 118,378. In the Matter of LANCE M. HALEY, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 118,378 In the Matter of LANCE M. HALEY, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed March 2, 2018. One-year

More information

MEMORANDUM DECISION NEW YORK SUPREME COURT - QUEENS COUNTY. PRESENT: HON. ORIN R. KITZES PART 17 Justice

MEMORANDUM DECISION NEW YORK SUPREME COURT - QUEENS COUNTY. PRESENT: HON. ORIN R. KITZES PART 17 Justice MEMORANDUM DECISION NEW YORK SUPREME COURT - QUEENS COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ORIN R. KITZES PART 17 Justice ----------------------------------------------------------------------X EMIGRANT MORTGAGE COMPANY,

More information

Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division Second Department

Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division Second Department To be argued by: ANDREW KENT 10 minutes requested Supreme Court, Kings County Index No. 11198/2014 Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division Second Department In the Matter of the Application

More information

310 W. 115 St. LLC v Greenpoint Mtge. Funding, Inc NY Slip Op 31644(U) August 27, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:

310 W. 115 St. LLC v Greenpoint Mtge. Funding, Inc NY Slip Op 31644(U) August 27, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 310 W. 115 St. LLC v Greenpoint Mtge. Funding, Inc. 2015 NY Slip Op 31644(U) August 27, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 156309/2014 Judge: Donna M. Mills Cases posted with a "30000"

More information

Chapter III ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. Administrative law concerns the authority and procedures of administrative agencies.

Chapter III ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. Administrative law concerns the authority and procedures of administrative agencies. Chapter III ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Administrative law concerns the authority and procedures of administrative agencies. Administrative agencies are governmental bodies other than the courts or the legislatures

More information

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: April 7, 2016 520670 ROBERT L. SCHULZ, v Appellant, STATE OF NEW YORK EXECUTIVE, ANDREW CUOMO, GOVERNOR,

More information

Flushing Sav. Bank, FSB v Ataraxis Props. Ltd NY Slip Op 31416(U) June 7, 2010 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: Judge:

Flushing Sav. Bank, FSB v Ataraxis Props. Ltd NY Slip Op 31416(U) June 7, 2010 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: Judge: Flushing Sav. Bank, FSB v Ataraxis Props. Ltd. 2010 NY Slip Op 31416(U) June 7, 2010 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 09-36399 Judge: Ralph T. Gazzillo Republished from New York State Unified

More information

CHAPTER Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 1088

CHAPTER Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 1088 CHAPTER 2007-62 Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 1088 An act relating to due process; amending s. 27.40, F.S.; providing for offices of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel to be appointed

More information

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Barquero 2015 NY Slip Op 32417(U) December 14, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: /2014 Judge:

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Barquero 2015 NY Slip Op 32417(U) December 14, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: /2014 Judge: Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Barquero 2015 NY Slip Op 32417(U) December 14, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 702181/2014 Judge: David Elliot Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,

More information

APPEALS TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT HON. FRANCES E. CAFARELL

APPEALS TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT HON. FRANCES E. CAFARELL APPEALS TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT by HON. FRANCES E. CAFARELL Clerk of the Court, New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division Fourth Department Rochester APPEALS TO THE APPELLATE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE Filed 7/29/16 Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage CA2/1 Opinion on remand from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties

More information

Poupart v Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn NY Slip Op 33269(U) December 17, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2016 Judge: David

Poupart v Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn NY Slip Op 33269(U) December 17, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2016 Judge: David Poupart v Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. 2018 NY Slip Op 33269(U) December 17, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 656272/2016 Judge: David Benjamin Cohen Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,

More information

ARS Investors II HVB, LLC v Galaxy Transp., Inc NY Slip Op 30367(U) February 24, 2015 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number:

ARS Investors II HVB, LLC v Galaxy Transp., Inc NY Slip Op 30367(U) February 24, 2015 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: ARS Investors II 2012-1 HVB, LLC v Galaxy Transp., Inc. 2015 NY Slip Op 30367(U) February 24, 2015 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 24157/13E Judge: John A. Barone Cases posted with a "30000"

More information

JUDICIARY OF GUAM ELECTRONIC FILING RULES 1

JUDICIARY OF GUAM ELECTRONIC FILING RULES 1 1 1 Adopted by the Supreme Court of Guam pursuant to Promulgation Order No. 15-001-01 (Oct. 2, 2015). TABLE OF CONTENTS DIVISION I - AUTHORITY AND SCOPE Page EFR 1.1. Electronic Document Management System.

More information

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x In re: Chapter 11

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x In re: Chapter 11 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------x In re: RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY LLC, Debtor. ---------------------------------------------------------------x

More information

5 USC NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see

5 USC NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES PART III - EMPLOYEES Subpart F - Labor-Management and Employee Relations CHAPTER 77 - APPEALS 7701. Appellate procedures (a) An employee, or applicant for

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, AS TRUSTEE FOR SAXON SECURITIES TRUST 2003-1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. CONNIE WILSON

More information

ELENA RUTH SASSOWER, being duly sworn deposes and says: 1. I am the unrepresented individual plaintiff in this citizen-taxpayer action brought

ELENA RUTH SASSOWER, being duly sworn deposes and says: 1. I am the unrepresented individual plaintiff in this citizen-taxpayer action brought SUPREME COURT OF STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY COUNTY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x CENTER FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY, INC. and ELENA RUTH SASSOWER, individually

More information

Medina County Court of Common Pleas. Rules of the General Division

Medina County Court of Common Pleas. Rules of the General Division Medina County Court of Common Pleas Rules of the General Division Effective January 1, 2009 1 Rule 1 Rule 2 Rule 3 Rule 4 Rule 5 Rule 6 Rule 7 Rule 8 Rule 9 Rule 10 Rule 11 Rule 12 Rule 13 Rule 14 Rule

More information

Sec. 9 SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Sec. 9 SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 85 SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Sec. 9 1998, 112 Stat. 3236; Pub. L. 106-554, Sec. 1(a)(5) [title II, Sec. 206(b)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-429; Pub. L. 111-203, title IX, Sec. 929, July

More information

GUAM CODE ANNOTATED TITLE 7 CIVIL PROCEDURE JUDICIARY AND UPDATED THROUGH P.L (JUNE 5, 2018)

GUAM CODE ANNOTATED TITLE 7 CIVIL PROCEDURE JUDICIARY AND UPDATED THROUGH P.L (JUNE 5, 2018) GUAM CODE ANNOTATED TITLE 7 CIVIL PROCEDURE AND JUDICIARY UPDATED THROUGH P.L. 34-107 (JUNE 5, 2018) TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE 7 CIVIL PROCEDURE & JUDICIARY DIVISION 1 COURTS AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS Chapter

More information

OKLAHOMA FALSE CLAIMS ACT

OKLAHOMA FALSE CLAIMS ACT . OKLAHOMA FALSE CLAIMS ACT OKLAHOMA MEDICAID FALSE CLAIMS ACT 63-5053. Short title. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Oklahoma Medicaid False Claims Act". Added by Laws 2007, c. 137, 1,

More information

Westchester Supreme Court Foreclosure Settlement Conference Part

Westchester Supreme Court Foreclosure Settlement Conference Part Westchester Supreme Court Foreclosure Settlement Conference Part Presiding: HON. ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, JSC Administrative Judge, Ninth Judicial District Albert J, Degatano, Court Attorney-Referee Erin Guven,

More information

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Rodney 2016 NY Slip Op 30761(U) April 12, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: /2015 Judge: Robert J.

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Rodney 2016 NY Slip Op 30761(U) April 12, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: /2015 Judge: Robert J. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Rodney 2016 NY Slip Op 30761(U) April 12, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 705120/2015 Judge: Robert J. McDonald Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013

More information

WASHINGTON STATE MEDICAID FRAUD FALSE CLAIMS ACT. This chapter may be known and cited as the medicaid fraud false claims act.

WASHINGTON STATE MEDICAID FRAUD FALSE CLAIMS ACT. This chapter may be known and cited as the medicaid fraud false claims act. Added by Chapter 241, Laws 2012. Effective date June 7, 2012. RCW 74.66.005 Short title. WASHINGTON STATE MEDICAID FRAUD FALSE CLAIMS ACT This chapter may be known and cited as the medicaid fraud false

More information

Onewest Bank, FSB v Burrell 2013 NY Slip Op 31274(U) June 12, 2013 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: Judge: Emily Pines Republished

Onewest Bank, FSB v Burrell 2013 NY Slip Op 31274(U) June 12, 2013 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: Judge: Emily Pines Republished Onewest Bank, FSB v Burrell 2013 NY Slip Op 31274(U) June 12, 2013 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: 001663-2013 Judge: Emily Pines Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service.

More information

Signed June 24, 2017 United States Bankruptcy Judge

Signed June 24, 2017 United States Bankruptcy Judge The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described. Signed June 24, 2017 United States Bankruptcy Judge IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN

More information

FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/21/ :52 AM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2016

FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/21/ :52 AM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2016 FILED WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2016 1152 AM INDEX NO. 70104/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF 01/21/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK WESTCHESTER COUNTY ------------------------------------X

More information

DEFENDANT S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

DEFENDANT S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT Appendix E4 Defendant s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Set Aside Default Page 1 of 9 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE Defendant Pro Se SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY CHANCERY DIVISION COUNTY Plaintiff, DOCKET

More information

RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT

RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT Effective April 29, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL PROVISIONS... 1 1. Authority and Applicability.... 1 2. Definitions.... 1 A. Administrative Law

More information

TITLE 25. RESIDENTIAL FORECLOSURE AND EVICTION LAW CHAPTER 1. SHORT TITLE, FINDINGS, AND PURPOSE

TITLE 25. RESIDENTIAL FORECLOSURE AND EVICTION LAW CHAPTER 1. SHORT TITLE, FINDINGS, AND PURPOSE TITLE 25. RESIDENTIAL FORECLOSURE AND EVICTION LAW CHAPTER 1. SHORT TITLE, FINDINGS, AND PURPOSE 25 M.P.T.L. ch. 1 1 Section 1. Short Title This Law shall be known as the Residential Foreclosure and Eviction

More information

MEMORANbUM TO: Hon. Michael V. Foreclosure Action Surplus Monies form

MEMORANbUM TO: Hon. Michael V. Foreclosure Action Surplus Monies form state OF NEW YORK UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM j;mpire STATE PlJ\ZA 4 ESP, SUITE 2001 ALBANY, NEW YORK 12ll3 14$0 (513) 474 3828 A. GAIL PRUD 1m l'tlicuael V. COCCOMA OUEf IWMJNISTIIAlWI!JVOOE Dfl'lfTY ClflEI'.WMlNISTRA

More information

Tennessee Medicaid False Claims Act

Tennessee Medicaid False Claims Act Tennessee Medicaid False Claims Act (Tenn. Code Ann. 71-5-181 to 185) i 71-5-181. Tennessee Medicaid False Claims Act -- Short title. (a) The title of this section and 71-5-182 -- 71-5-185 is and may be

More information

(Reprinted with amendments adopted on May 17, 2017) SECOND REPRINT S.B. 33. Referred to Committee on Judiciary

(Reprinted with amendments adopted on May 17, 2017) SECOND REPRINT S.B. 33. Referred to Committee on Judiciary (Reprinted with amendments adopted on May, ) SECOND REPRINT S.B. SENATE BILL NO. COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY (ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR) PREFILED NOVEMBER, Referred to Committee on Judiciary SUMMARY

More information

Respondents. Petitioner the People of the State of New York, by Andrew. M. Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York (petitioner)

Respondents. Petitioner the People of the State of New York, by Andrew. M. Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York (petitioner) SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 17 -----------------------------------------X THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, by ANDREW M. CUOMO, Attorney General of the State of New

More information