SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 5483

- 16T3

HUDSON CITY SAVINGS BANK, A federally chartered savings bank organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v.

JAY J . LIN, his/her heirs, devisees, and personal representatives, and his, her, their or any of their successors in right, ti tle and interest , Defendant,

and

IRENE H . LIN, his/her heirs, devisees and personal representatives, and his, her, their or any of their successors in right, title and interest ,
Defendant

- Appellant.

______________________________________________

Submitted May 22, 2018

– Decided
Before Judges Sumners and Moynihan.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court
. " A lthough it is posted on the internet , this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited
. R . 1:36

- 3.

August 1, 20182 A

- 5483

- 16T3 On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chan cery Division, Somerset County, Docket No. F

- 0 29667

- 10.
Jay J. Lin, at torney for appellant. 1
Parker McCay, PA, attorneys for respondent ( Eug ene R. Mariano, of counsel; Stacy L. Moore, Jr., on the brief).

PER CURIAM
In this residential foreclosure matter, d ef endant Irene Lin
appeals from July 21, 2017 order s denying her motion s to vacate
summary judgment granted to plaintiff Hudson City Savings Bank

(HCSB) ; and for sanctions in lieu of opposition to HCSB 's motion
for entry of final judgment. We affirm.
In 2007, defendants executed a mortgage to HCSB to secure a
$680,000 note
. 2 Defendants defaulted thre e years later, and on
May 28, 2010, HCSB, through its then

- attorney, Zucker Goldberg &
Ackerman (Zucker Goldberg), initiated foreclosure proceedings
. After HCSB's initial motion for summary judgment in 2011 was denied for procedural deficiencies, it refil ed the motion in

2013. The foreclosure proceedings, however, were stayed due to
defendants' bankruptcy filing until the stay was vacated in

1 Jay J. Lin represents his wife Irene Lin, and although he is a defendant , he is not a party to this appeal.

2 HCSB has since merged with and been succeeded by M&T Bank; there is no challenge to M&T Bank's rights as HCSB's successor.3 A

- 5483

- 16T3

2015. Shortly there after, Zucker Goldberg filed for its own
bankruptcy an d HCSB retained current counsel
.
In late 2016, HCSB moved again for summary judgment.

Defendants were served the motion

– at the same address they had
been served at for the initial foreclosure complaint as well as
all subsequent correspondence and filings

– but did not submit
opposition. On D ecember 5, 2016, Judge Margaret Goodzeit

entered an order , along with a written statement of reasons,
granting HCSB's motion for summary judgment, striking
defendants' answer as unresponsive , and returning the matter to

the Office of Foreclosure as an uncontested foreclosure action
. Six months later, d efendants filed a motion to vacate the
court's summary judgment decision and a cross

- motion seeking
sanctions in lieu of opposition to HCSB's mo tion for entry of
final judgment. In order s dated July 21, 2017, Judge Goodzeit

denied the motions
. In her statement of reasons, the judge
initially noted that defendants' motion to vacate failed to
specify the court rule they were relying upon but she t reated it
as a motion for reconsideration. Even though the motion was
untimely under Rule 4:49

- 1 because it was filed well beyond

twenty days after the December 5, 2016 order sought to be

reconsidered , the judge addressed and rejected the entirety of

the motion's claims
.4 A

- 5483

- 16T3

Applying Rule 4:49

- 2, Judge Goodzeit declined to reconsider

her summary judgment order because it was not based on plainly
incorrect reasons, she had consider ed all evidence submitted ,
and there was no good reason to consider new evidence. The
judge determined defendants' claim that HCSB was seeking

foreclosure on a 2001 mortgage, and not the 2007 mortgage, was
"without merit whatsoever." The judge found defendants'
argument that Zucker Goldberg 's bankruptcy prevent ed HCSB from
obtaining foreclosure "is ill

- conceived ” ; the law firm did not
seek foreclosure, the bank did. And as for defendants'
bankruptcy, the judge found that the stay to prosecute the
foreclosure proceedings was lifted, giving HCSB the right to

move for summary judgment. The judge also determined that, even
though all court records belied Jay J. Lin ' s claim that th e summary judgment motion was served on defendants at the wrong
address, there was no certification that the motion was not

received

– "such deficiency [being] the death knell to his
argument." In sum, Judge Goodzeit found there were "no
arguments, case law, or facts to warrant reconsideration of " the
summary judgment order
. Turning to defendants' cross

- motion, the judge, noting

defendants' certification was "al most identical [to] their5 A

- 5483

- 16T3

motion to vacate summary judgment", reasoned that they "provide
no basis to impose sanctions on [HCSB] whatsoever."
In conclusion, Judge Goodzeit maintained that both motions

lacked merit as defendants did not "provide any case la w or an

iota of evidence " in su pport, suggesting their effort was "a
misplaced attempt to delay the inevitable."

Defendant argues:
[POINT] I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING PLAINTIFF AND ITS DEBT COLLECTORS VIOLATED THE AUTOMATIC STAY ORDER.

[POINT] I I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING PLAINTIFF AND ITS DEBT COLLECTORS VIOLATED [THE] FDCPA. [ 3 ]

[POINT] III. THE COURT SHOULD RELIEVE THE TRIAL COURT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR REASONS OF FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION, AND MISCONDUCT OF PLAINTIFF AND ITS DEBT COLLECTORS.

[POINT] IV. THE COURT SHOULD RELIEVE THAT TRIAL COURT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR REASONS OF THE JUDGMENT OR ORDER IS VOID.
[POINT] V. THE COURT SHOULD RELIEVE THE TRIAL COURT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR REASONS OF MISTAKE.

[POINT] VI. THE COURT SHOULD RELIEVE THE TRIAL COURT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST

3 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 to 1692p
.6 A

- 5483

- 16T3 DEFENDANT FOR REASONS OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD ALTER THE JUDGMENT. (THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW).
[POINT] VII. THE COURT SHOULD RE LIEVE THE TRIAL COURT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR REASONS OF JUSTIFYING RELIEF FROM THE OPERATION OF THE JUDGMENT OR ORDER. (THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW).

In her reply brief, she argues:

[POINT] I. THIS APPEAL MUST BE DECIDED ON THE MERIT S.

[POINT] II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING PLAINTIFF AND ITS DEBT COLLECTORS VIOLATED THE AUTOMATIC STAY ORDER.
[POINT] III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING PLAINTIFF AND ITS DEBT COLLECTORS VIOLATED [THE] FDCPA.
[POINT] IV. THE COURT SHOULD REL IEVE THE TRIAL COURT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR REASONS OF FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION, AND MISCONDUCT OF PLAINTIFF AND ITS DEBT COLLECTORS.
[POINT] V. THE COURT SHOULD RELIEVE THE TRIAL COURT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR REASONS OF THE JUDGMENT OR ORDER IS VOID.

[POINT] VI. THE COURT SHOULD RELIEVE THE TRIAL COURT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR REASONS OF MISTAKE.
[POINT] VII. THE COURT SHOULD RELIEVE THE TRIAL COURT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR REASONS OF NE WLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD ALTER THE JUDGMENT.

[POINT] VIII. THE COURT SHOULD RELIEVE THE TRIAL COURT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST7 A

- 5483

- 16T3 DEFENDANT FOR REASONS OF JUSTIFYING RELIEF FROM THE OPERATION OF THE JUDGMENT OR ORDER.

Defendant 's arguments are wi thout sufficient merit to
warrant discussion, R. 2:11

- 3(e)(1)(E), and we affirm
substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Goodzeit's
cogent written decision.

Affirmed.