SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF RICHMOND ------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 135492/2016 DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR NOVASTAR MORTGAGE VERIFIED REPLY TO FUNDING TRUST, SERIES 2007-1 NOVASTAR COUNTERCLAIMS HOME EQUITY LOAN ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1, -VS- Plaintiff, JOSEPH CHARLES; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; NOVASTAR MORTGAGE, INC.; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WARD HILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, #1" #12" "John Doe through "John Doe the last twelve names being fictitious and unknown to plaintiff, the persons or parties intended being the tenants, occupants, persons, or corporations, if any, having or claiming interest in or lien upon the premises described in the complaint, Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------------X X The Plaintiff, by its attorneys, RAS Boriskin, LLC, replies to the counterclaims (" Defendant" interposed by the Defendant Joseph Charles ("Defendant") as follows: AS AND FOR A REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST COUNTERCLAIM 1. Plaintiff denies having sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph "20" through Paragraph "45" of the Defendant's First Counterclaim. AS AND FOR A REPLY TO SECOND COUNTERCLAIM 2. Plaintiff denies having sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to 1 of 7
the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph "46" through Paragraph "48" of the Defendant's Second Counterclaim. AS AND FOR A REPLY TO THIRD COUNTERCLAIM 3. Plaintiff denies having sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph "49" through Paragraph "54" of the Defendant's Third Counterclaim. AS AND FOR A FIRST COMPLETE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4. That any contract between Defendant and Plaintiff was breached by the Defendant. AS AND FOR A SECOND COMPLETE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5. That the counterclaims herein fail to state a cause of action against the Plaintiff. AS AND FOR A THIRD COMPLETE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. That one or more defenses are founded upon documentary evidence. AS AND FOR A FOURTH COMPLETE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7. That the Defendant has failed to plead fraud with particularity pursuant to CPLR Rule 3016 and GBL 349. AS AND FOR A FIFTH COMPLETE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8. That the Counterclaims are wholly without merit and their initiation is deemed frivolous conduct by this answering Plaintiff. AS AND FOR A SIXTH COMPLETE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9. Plaintiff is a good faith encumbrancer for value without knowledge of any purported fraud, and is entitled to the protections of RPL $ 266. 2 of 7
AS AND FOR A SEVENTH COMPLETE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10. Plaintiff is a good faith purchaser of the Note and Mortgage and was unaware of the Defendant's defenses and claims at the time it took ownership of the Note and Mortgage. As such, Plaintiff is a holder in due course of the Note and Mortgage. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH COMPLETE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11. That the Plaintiff did not owe the Defendant any of the duties alleged in the Counterclaims. AS AND FOR A NINTH COMPLETE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12. The Defendant has failed to properly state a claim for punitive damages. AS AND FOR A TENTH COMPLETE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13. That the Defendant's Counterclaims are barred by the Statutes of Frauds. AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH COMPLETE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14. That the applicable Statutes of Limitations pertaining to the counterclaims have expired. Therefore, the Counterclaims are barred as a matter of law as to the Plaintiff. AS AND FOR A TWELFTH COMPLETE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15. That the Defendant lacks standing to assert the Counterclaims. AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH COMPLETE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE I 16. That the Defendant's counterclaims are barred by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands. AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH COMPLETE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17. That the Defendant's counterclaims are barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. 3 of 7
AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH COMPLETE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18. That the Defendant's counterclaims are barred because the Defendant failed to mitigate his damages. AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH COMPLETE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19. Defendant is barred from any recovery due to their failure to comply with the terms of the Note and Mortgage. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Defendant's Counterclaims be dismissed in their entirety, together with such other and further relief as to this Court may deem just and proper. Dated: March 29, 2018 Westbury, New York RAS ORISK N, L By: ans H. / ugustin, Es. eys for I laintzf 900 erchants Concou Westb, New\ York 11590 Phone: 516.280.7675 Facsimile: 516.280.7674 To: Carl E. Person, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Joseph Charles 225 E. 36* Street, Suite 3A New York, NY 10016-3664 (212) 307-4444 4 of 7
CERTIFICATION BY ATTORNEY Hans H. Augustin, Esq., an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, an associate with the firm of RAS Boriskin, LLC, attorneys for the Plaintiff herein, pursuant to Uniform Rule Section 130-1.1-a, states as follows: I. I hereby certify, under the penalty of perjury and as an officer of the Court, that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the presentation of the within paper or the contentions therein are not &ivolous as defined in subsection (c) of section 130-1.1, including that the substance of the factual statements therein are not false. 2. This verification is made by affirmant and not by the Plaintiffbecause said Plaintiff does not have offices in Nassau County. Dated: March 29, 2018 Westbury, New York H sh.au stin,e q. I 5 of 7
STATE OF NEW YORK) )ss: COUNTY OF NASSAU ) The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the Court of New York State shows: deponent is an associate of the law firm of RAS Boriskin, LLC, the attorneys for record for the PlaintifF in the within action: deponent has read the foregoing Reply to Counter-Claim and knows the contents thereof: the same is true to deponent's own knowledge except as to the matters therein stated fo be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. This verification is made by deponent and not client because client does not reside in the same county in which deponent maintains his office. The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are as follows: books, records, conversations held in deponent's office. penury. The Undersigned affirms that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of Dated: March 29, 2018 Westbury, New York 6 of 7
INDEXNo.: 135492/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF RICHMOND DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR NOVASTAR MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUST, SERIES 2007-1 NOVASTAR HOME EQUITY LOAN ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1, -against- Plaintiff, JOSEPH CHARLES; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; NOVASTAR MORTGAGE, INC.; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WARD HILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, "JOHN DOE #1" through "JOHN DOE #12," the last twelve names being fictitious and unknown to plaintiff, the persons or parties intended being the tenants, occupants, persons or corporations, if any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the premises, described in the complaint, Defendants. VERIFIED REPLY TO COUNTERCLAIMS RAS BORISKIN, LLC Attorneys for Plaintif 900 Merchants Concourse, Suite LL-5 Westbury, New York 11590 Telephone: 516.280.7675 Facsimile: 516.280.7674 7 of 7