Source: http://www.wallstreetmainstreet.com/2013/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 12:20:29+00:00

Document:
"Judge Jack M. Battaglia of Kings County Supreme Court recently found that a Defendant was Not in Default for 'Informal Appearances' in Foreclosure Settlement Part and judgment by default may not be entered against her."
[*1] Wells Fargo Bank v Butler 2013 NY Slip Op 23282 Decided on August 23, 2013 Supreme Court, Kings County Battaglia, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports.
Pamala Butler, New York City Environmental Control Board, New York City Parking Violations Bureau, New York City Transit Adjudication Bureau, and "JOHN DOE No. 1" through "JOHN DOE # 10," the last ten names being fictitious and unknown to the plaintiff, the person or parties intended being the person or parties, if any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the mortgaged premises described in the complaint, Defendants.
Plaintiff was represented by Linda P. Manfredi, Esq. of Frankel Lambert Weiss Weisman & Gordon, LLP. Defendant Pamela Butler sued herein as Pamala Butler was self-represented.
In this mortgage foreclosure action commenced on August 17, 2007, Plaintiff seeks an order, among other things, granting judgment by default and an order of reference. The mortgaged property is located at 518 Georgia Avenue, Brooklyn; the mortgagor is defendant Pamala Butler. With a Decision and Order dated January 10, 2008, this Court denied Plaintiff's first ex parte application [*2]for the same relief, with leave to renew; and with a Decision and Order dated September 10, 2008, this Court denied Plaintiff's renewed application, again with leave to renew.
In the instant renewed motion, Plaintiff attaches a new affidavit of service indicating that Pamala Butler was purportedly served by nail and mail' by affixing the summons and complaint on the door of Ms. Butler's usual place of abode.' Prior to resorting to nail and mail' service, Plaintiff's process server avers that he attempted personal service at Ms. Butler's usual place of abode on Friday, August 17, 2007 at 3:15 pm; Monday, August 20, 2007 at 10:10 am; and Thursday, August 23, 2007 at 9:30 pm.
Service under circumstances similar to those here was found insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction in O'Connel v Post (27 AD3d 630 [2d Dept 2006]) [T]wo of the attempts at service occurred on weekdays during hours when it reasonably could have been expected that the defendant was either working or in transit to and from work.' (See id., at 631.) And there is no indication that the process server made any effort to determine [Ms. Butler's] business address in order to attempt personal service thereat pursuant to CPLR 308(2) before resorting to "nail and mail" service.' (Id.) (See also County of Nassau v Yohannan, 34 AD3d 620 [2d Dept 2006].) Indeed, a mortgagee would be expected to have a business address for its mortgagor."
Over the following four years, from January 2009 until March 2013, according to the case [*3]management database, the parties appeared 25 times in the Foreclosure Settlement Conference Part. With a Directive dated March 15, 2013, the action and the pending motion were referred to this Court, with an appearance scheduled for June 24 by administrative process over which the Court had no control. On that date, 50 motions were scheduled, together with seven foreclosure conferences, making it impossible for the Court to adequately address this action. The matter was adjourned to August 12.
At the August 12 conference, Pamala Butler having appeared, as she had on June 24, the Court suggested that, under the circumstances, it might serve the interests of both parties for Plaintiff to conditionally withdraw its motion pending receipt of an answer from Ms. Butler. The Court noted in particular Ms. Butler's many appearances in the Foreclosure Settlement Conference Part. Plaintiff's counsel subsequently advised the Court that Plaintiff preferred to have the motion determined as submitted.
On this second renewal, Plaintiff submits an Amended Affidavit Information Pertaining to Nail and Mail Service of Demetra D. Karamitsos, and a copy of a Uniform Residential Loan Application dated November 9, 2004 purportedly executed by defendant/mortgagor Pamala Butler. Since the original Affidavit of Service was made by Ben Cohen, and this Amended Affidavit is based on information purportedly received from "deponent's agent," which is clearly hearsay and not shown to be admissible as evidence under any exception to the hearsay rule, it adds nothing to Plaintiff's showing. In any event, the only reference to a search for a business address for Ms. Butler is to "a search of a database system" that "revealed no possible places of employment for the defendant Pamala Butler," which, even if admissible, would have virtually no probative value.
As to the loan application, "the defendant's [sic] listed her place of employment at the same address service was effectuated and she further noted that she was self-employed" (see Affirmation in Support ¶ 12.) But there is no evidence that the loan application was provided to the process server, and nothing in the Amended Affidavit to suggest that the information contained therein in any way affected service. Moreover, information provided in 2004 would not satisfy the "due diligence" requirement three years later without further investigation.
Here, according to the court's case management database, defendant Butler appeared 25 times in the Foreclosure Settlement Conference Part, appeared twice before this Court after the action was released from that Part, and has served opposition to Plaintiff's renewal motion. CPLR 3408 mandates settlement conference proceedings in residential mortgage foreclosure actions (see CPLR 3408[a]), at which "[b]oth the plaintiff and defendant shall negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution, including a loan modification, if possible" (see CPLR 3408[f].) The clear and simple purpose of the settlement conference process is to keep people in their homes "if possible," and thereby avoid the economic and social costs of foreclosure to individuals, families, and communities. Public policy in favor of disposition on the merits is at its strongest in residential foreclosure actions.
The Court concludes, therefore, that defendant Pamala Butler is not in default, and judgment by default may not be entered against her.
WASHINGTON, DC – Mark S. Farhood, 49, formerly of San Diego, Calif., and Jason S. Sant, 38, of Lecanto, Fla., were sentenced today for their roles in operating a nationwide online foreclosure rescue scam that went by various names, including Home Advocate Trustees and Walk Away Today, and used various websites, including walkawaytoday.org and sellfastusa.com, to deceive hundreds of vulnerable, distressed homeowners into surrendering their properties to the company.
Farhood was sentenced to 11 years in prison, followed by 3 years of supervised release. Sant was sentenced to 6 years in prison, followed by 2 years of supervised release. Each was also ordered to forfeit approximately $2 million in fraud proceeds to the government, along with various bank accounts and other assets.
The homes purportedly sold to Home Advocate Trustees and its related entities ended in foreclosure, harming the participating homeowners and commonly resulting in eviction of the tenants.This case was investigated by SIGTARP and the FBI’s Washington Field Office. Assistant United States Attorney Paul J. Nathanson prosecuted the case on behalf of the United States.This prosecution was brought in coordination with President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, which was established to wage an aggressive and coordinated effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. SIGTARP is a member of the task force.
To learn more about the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, please visit www.StopFraud.gov.
Judge Schack Refuses to be Silenced!
"Once again the ultimate defender of home owner rights steps up and gives the banks the beat down they deserve. The Judge is really vocal on this one! We have heard banks argue many times that JP Morgan Chase OWNS all of the old Washington Mutual loans that went through the FDIC. We never bought it. Leave it to Judge Schack to unearth the fact that Chase never owned the notes – it only owned the servicing rights. However, for almost two (2) years Chase's attorney(s) stood tall and said YES, we own the note and the mortgage. Then, in late 2011 Chase's attorney finally admitted they DID NOT OWN THE NOTE OR THE MORTGAGE -they only had servicing rights! How about that! Not only a waste of the court's time (and that of the borrower) but also a clear violation of CPLR Rule 3408 (f) BAD FAITH. Imagine that, a bank negotiating in bad faith. Bottom line - Don't mess with Judge Schack. Oh, did I fail to mention that the initial deposit by the borrower of $490,000, Judge Schack released $55,617.11 back to the borrower and declared the mortgage satisfied. How about that for justice???"
Frederick Butler et. al., Defendants.
Plaintiff, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS PURCHASER OF THE LOANS AND OTHER ASSETS OF WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FORMERLY KNOWN AS WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA (THE "SAVINGS BANK") FROM THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, ACTING AS RECEIVER FOR THE SAVINGS BANK AND PURSUANT TO ITS AUTHORITY UNDER THE FEDERAL INSURANCE ACT, 12 U.S.C. § 1821 (d) [CHASE], commenced the instant foreclosure action against defendant FREDERICK BUTLER [BUTLER], for the premises located at 325 Macon Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 1847, Lot 49, County of Kings). After numerous CPLR Rule 3408 mandatory settlement conferences, first conducted by a Special Referee in the Foreclosure Settlement Part and then personally before me, the instant action for the foreclosure of the subject mortgage became moot, with the sale of the subject premises and the recording of a satisfaction by CHASE. The issue before the Court is the distribution of $490,000.00, deposited by defendant BUTLER with the Kings County Clerk, pursuant to my June 27, 2011 order authorizing the sale of the premises. This money is claimed by both CHASE and BUTLER. However, CHASE never owned the subject mortgage and note, despite asserting for almost two years that it did, and BUTLER never paid the balance due.
After numerous misrepresentations to the Court by various counsel for CHASE, it is clear that the actual BUTLER mortgage and note, given in 2007 by the defunct WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA [WAMU], was acquired in 2007 by the FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION [FANNIE MAE] from WAMU. Despite CHASE'S claims, before December 2011, to the Special Referee and the Court that it owned the subject mortgage and note, plaintiff CHASE only purchased the servicing rights to the subject mortgage and note from the FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION [FDIC] in September 2008, when WAMU was seized by the FDIC.
Plaintiff CHASE, as will be explained, never owned the subject BUTLER mortgage and note. Therefore, CHASE had no right to foreclose on the subject mortgage and note. Moreover, the continued subterfuge by CHASE and its counsel to the Special Referee and Court that it owned the subject BUTLER mortgage and note demonstrated "bad faith" in violation of CPLR Rule 3408 (f), which requires that "[b]oth the plaintiff and defendant shall negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution, including a loan modification, if possible."
The Court has before it two orders to show cause by defendant BUTLER. The first order to show cause, dated October 26, 2011, seeks: the release, to defendant BUTLER, pursuant to [*2]CPLR Rule 2606, of the $490,000.00 deposited with the Kings County Clerk; reinstating defendant BUTLER's May 10, 2011 order to show cause which sought dismissal of the instant action with prejudice since plaintiff CHASE was not the holder of the subject promissory note; dismissing the action with prejudice, pursuant to CPLR Rule 3211 (a) (1), (3), (7) and (8); sanctioning plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel, pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1; and, declaring the subject BUTLER note to be fully satisfied. Defendant BUTLER's second order to show cause, dated March 29, 2012, seeks leave to amend defendant's February 22, 2010-answer. Plaintiff CHASE, by an amended cross-motion, seeks the release, pursuant to CPLR Rule 2606, of the $490,000.00 deposited by defendant BUTLER with the Kings County Clerk, to plaintiff CHASE.
This case is troubling because various counsel for CHASE falsely claimed for almost two years, from January 20, 2010 until December 2011, that CHASE was the owner of the mortgage and note. Ultimately, in late 2011, after the subject mortgage had been satisfied, plaintiff CHASE's counsel admitted, in opposition to defendant BUTLER's October 26, 2011 order to show cause, that plaintiff CHASE did not own the BUTLER mortgage and note, but only the servicing rights to it. CHASE's counsel, in its opposition papers, submitted an affidavit, dated December 9, 2011, from Greg De Castro, "Director-Servicing Management" of FANNIE MAE, claiming that FANNIE MAE acquired from WAMU the BUTLER Mortgage and Note and "Chase is the servicer of the loan." Further, Mr. De Castro makes the ludicrous claim, in violation of New York law, that "[a]s Fannie Mae's servicer, CHASE has authority to commence a foreclosure action on the Loan and to receive and/or collect the proceeds from the sale of the Property."
For reasons to be explained, in applying the Court's equitable powers, the Court grants the October 26, 2011 order to show cause of defendant BUTLER to the extent that: the Kings County Clerk shall release to defendant BUTLER $55,617.11 from the $490,000.00 deposited with the Kings County Clerk; the Court's declares that the subject BUTLER Note is fully satisfied; and a hearing shall be conducted to (1) determine whether CHASE or FANNIE MAE is entitled to the balance of $434,382.89 deposited with the Kings County Clerk, pursuant to my order and, (2) to give CHASE and its counsel an opportunity to be heard as to whether or not they engaged in frivolous conduct, in violation of 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1, and if so should CHASE and/or its counsel pay any costs and sanctions. The March 29, 2012 order to show cause of defendant BUTLER is denied as moot. The amended cross-motion of plaintiff CHASE for the release of the $490,000.00 deposited with the Kings County Clerk, to plaintiff CHASE, is denied.
The Automated City Register Information System (ACRIS) does not show any assignments of the WAMU mortgage to FANNIE MAE or CHASE. However, a CHASE representative, Yvonne Brooks, "Home Loan Senior Research Specialist," in her December 8, 2011-affidavit attached to plaintiff's cross-motion, claims, in ¶ 6, that FANNIE MAE, in April 2007, purchased the BUTLER loan and WAMU retained the servicing rights. Exhibit D of the cross-motion contains a computer printout, dated April 20, 2007, showing this. Thus, plaintiff CHASE ultimately acknowledged that FANNIE MAE is the "Wizard of Oz," operating behind the curtain, and the real owner of the subject BUTLER note and mortgage.
In 2008 there was a dispute between WAMU and defendant BUTLER about a $10.00 late payment on BUTLER's home equity line of credit. According to defendant BUTLER, WAMU ultimately acknowledged its error and promised defendant BUTLER that the error would be promptly corrected. However, in the interim, WAMU had defendant BUTLER's home equity line of credit rescinded and injured his credit rating by reporting erroneous information to credit bureaus.
Corp. (FDIC) as Receiver for WAMU. WAMU had not corrected its errors by re-instituting Butler's line of credit and correcting the erroneous reporting to credit bureaus before it was seized by the FDIC. CHASE, despite its assertions to the contrary for almost two years in the instant action, purchased the servicing rights to WAMU's mortgages and notes, not the actual mortgages and notes.
In a letter, dated October 10, 2008, CHASE advised BUTLER that WAMU was closed by the Office of Thrift Supervision and the FDIC was named Receiver. It then states that CHASE "acquired certain assets of Washington Mutual Bank from the FDIC, including the right to service your loan."
Plaintiff CHASE's counsel, then Steven J. Baum, P.C., commenced the instant foreclosure action on the subject premises, with the filing of a summons, complaint and notice of pendency on January 20, 2010. In the first paragraph of the complaint, Steven J. Baum, P.C., "alleges upon information and belief" that plaintiff CHASE is "the owner and holder of a note and mortgage being foreclosed."
After plaintiff CHASE filed a Request for Judicial Intervention, an initial CPLR Rule 3408 mandatory settlement conference was held on March 22, 2010, followed by at least nine additional conferences, before Special Referee Deborah Goldstein. Defendant BUTLER appeared pro se except for the last conference, when he was represented by Yolande I. Nicholson, Esq. At the conclusion of the April 7, 2011-settlement conference, Special Referee Goldstein ordered that "Plaintiff is directed to appear by Sarah Feor, the attorney of Baum with knowledge of the standing and litigation issues. Production of all title and ownership documentation, including the note and all assignments are required to be produced in accordance with [CPLR] 3408 (e) at the next conference on 4/11/11 and Sarah Feor, Esq. must appear with a Chase rep."
In her April 14, 2011 order, Special Referee Goldstein noted that plaintiff Chase and its counsel "failed to abide by my last directive requiring a Chase representative to be present with a [*4]copy of the Note. In addition, Plaintiff appeared by two different law firms, Baum and Cullen & Dykman LLP, and they cannot agree on who is authorized to appear and negotiate on behalf of Chase." Moreover, Special Referee Goldstein noted that the payoff letters provided by CHASE's counsel included attorneys' fees for settlement conferences. Therefore, Special Referee Goldstein required plaintiff to provide defense "with a clear payoff reflecting only principal and capitalized arrears on or before 4/21/11," and to "produce a copy of the Note and all documents reflecting the transfer of title from WAMU to Chase at the next conference on 5/2/11."
The next conference was held before me on May 2, 2011. Counsel were present from both Baum and Cullen & Dykman for plaintiff, as well as counsel for defendant. CHASE'S new counsel, Cullen & Dykman, finally presented to the Court for its inspection the original note to WAMU executed by BUTLER. Plaintiff's counsel from both Baum and Cullen & Dykman represented to the Court that CHASE was the holder of the note. However, the WAMU note was not endorsed by the FDIC as Receiver or any other entity and ACRIS does not show any assignment of the mortgage. The conference did not result in a settlement.
Defendant directly by a legal assistant from Plaintiff's counsel office.
Defendant's counsel, as a result of this payment history, moved by an order to show cause, dated May 10, 2011, for, among other things: dismissal of the instant action based upon plaintiff's lack of good faith in that "plaintiff had received payment on May 22, 2010 for the amount specified" as owing in the complaint [$434,382.89]; and, awarding costs and sanctions against plaintiff because "plaintiff withheld material information, including the May 22, 2010 payment from the Court." In the May 10, 2011 order to show cause, I directed plaintiff to provide the Court with detailed information as to "the entity or third party that made the payment to it on May 22, 2010 that is specified in the payment history it delivered to defendant on May 4, 2011 . . . which payment resulted in plaintiff marking its loan payment history records fully settled,' in its opposition papers to be filed and served by June 13, 2011." Plaintiff failed to comply with this order and at the June 27, 2011 hearing before me made an application to extend the time to identify the May 22, 2010 payor. I denied this request.
In my June 27, 2011 decision and order, I granted defendant BUTLER's May 10, 2011 order to show cause to the extent that he could close on a long-sale of the subject premises and deposit [*5]$490,000.00 of the proceeds with the Kings County Clerk, pursuant to the CPLR § 1006 (g). Further, I directed that a certified copy of this order be filed with the City Register and that at the closing on the sale of the subject premises the title company could accept no proceeds on behalf of plaintiff CHASE. The parties could then move for distribution of the $490,000.00 deposited with the Kings County Clerk, after the closing of title on the subject premises.
In her August 25, 2011 order, Special Referee Goldstein referred the instant action back "to Part 27 for all purposes when they [the parties] reached an impasse regarding production of the original note."
The parties then made the orders to show cause and cross-motion now pending before the Court. Cullen & Dykman, in its opposition to defendant's instant order to show cause and in support of its cross-motion for the release of the $490,000.00 deposited with the Kings County Clerk to plaintiff CHASE, asserts that CHASE is entitled to receive the funds, on page 2 of its December 9, 2011-memorandum of law because "Chase, the servicer of the loan made by Washington Mutual Bank, N.A. andnow owned by Fannie Mae, is the designated entity to collect and receive the pay-off funds to satisfy the mortgage on the Property." In his December 9, 2011-affidavit, Greg De Castro, "Director-Servicing Management," for FANNIE MAE states, in ¶ 3, that "Fannie Mae acquired from Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. . . . ownership of the loan executed by Frederick Butler in the principal amount of $450,000.00 which is secured by a lien on the Property . . . Chase is the servicer of the Loan." Further, in ¶ 5, Mr. De Castro claims that "[a]s Fannie Mae's servicer, CHASE has authority to commence a foreclosure action on the Loan and to receive and/or collect the proceeds from the sale."CHASE, Mr. De Castro and FANNIE MAE must be unaware that in New York "[t]o establish a prima facie case in an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff must establish the existence of the mortgage and mortgage note, ownership of the mortgage, and the defendant's default in payment [emphasis added]." (Campaign v Barba, 23 AD3d 327 [2d Dept 2005]). Further, "foreclosure of a mortgage may not be brought by one who has no title to it." (Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 538 [2d Dept 1988]). Moreover, "[p]laintiff's attempt to foreclose upon a mortgage in which he had no legal or equitable interest was without foundation in law or fact." (Katz v East-Ville Realty Co., 249 AD2d 243 [1d Dept 1998]). It is clear, that after almost two years of its bad faith assertions to the contrary, CHASE never owned the subject mortgage and note. Therefore, CHASE lacks authority to be the plaintiff in the instant action. "The foreclosure of a mortgage cannot be pursued by one who has no demonstrated right to the debt." (Bank of New York v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 280 [2d Dept 2011]).
Yvonne Brooks, CHASE's Home Loan Senior Research Specialist, in her December 8, 2011-affidavit, admits, in ¶ 6, that FANNIE MAE, in April 2007 "purchased the loan from Washington Mutual . . . However, Washington Mutual retained the servicing rights." Then, Ms. Brooks, in ¶ 7 of her affidavit, states that on September 25, 2008 WAMU was placed into [*6]receivership by the FDIC and CHASE purchased certain assets, "including mortgage servicing rights." She then states, in ¶ 8, "[d]ue to the Chase's purchase of Washington Mutual's servicing rights, Chase took over the servicing obligations of the Loan."
the note is in our portfolio or whether we own it as trustee for an MBS trust.
unless the court is otherwise notified by Fannie Mae. [Emphasis added]."
Thus, it appears to the Court that the delay by CHASE in producing the subject BUTLER Note was to give Baum and/or Cullen & Dykman ample time to temporarily borrow the BUTLER Note from FANNIE MAE for its May 2, 2011 presentation to the Court. Despite its December 2011 admission that FANNIE MAE owned the subject BUTLER mortgage and note, CHASE, prior to this, continuously presented its ownership subterfuge to Special Referee Goldstein and the Court. The Court cannot countenance the deceptive behavior of CHASE, the alleged owner of the subject BUTLER mortgage and note, its counsel, and FANNIE MAE, the real owner of the subject BUTLER mortgage and note. FANNIE MAE's Servicing Guide, with its deceptive practices to fool courts, does not supercede New York law.
reclassification in the month when the fourth payment is delinquent.
Ms. Brooks, based upon the reclassification of the Butler mortgage, alleges in ¶ 16 of her affidavit, that the BUTLER loan "reclassification presents as FULL SETTLEMENT 5/22/10' on defendant's loan history and does not represent a payment [exhibit G of cross-motion]."
In analyzing the instant orders to show cause and cross-motion, the Court is cognizant that, with the sale of the subject premises and the $490,000.00 of the proceeds deposited with the Kings County Clerk, the instant BUTLER foreclosure action is now moot. However, the Court must deal with the aftermath, namely: the issue of bad faith by CHASE, its counsel and FANNIE Mae; the distribution of the $490,000.00 on deposit with the Kings County Clerk; and, whether the bad faith by CHASE and its counsel is frivolous conduct.
"A foreclosure action is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court (see Notey v Darien Constr. Corp., 41 NY2d 1055, 1055-1056 ). Once equity is invoked, the court's power is as broad as equity and justice require.' (Norstar Bank v Morabito, 201 AD2d 545 [2d Dept 1994])." (Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Horkan (68 AD3d 948 [2d Dept 2009]). (See Jamaica Sav. Bank v M.S. Inv. Co., 274 NY 215 ). "Since it is the plaintiff lender who seeks equitable relief from this court, the onus is upon the lender to satisfy the requisites of equity and come to this court with clean hands.' (Junkersfeld v Bank of Manhattan Co., 250 App Div 646 [ld Dept 1937].)" (M & [*8]T Mtge. Corp. v Foy, 20 Misc 3d 274, fn 1 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2008]). (See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Hughes, 27 Misc 3d 628, 634 [Sup Ct, Erie County 2010]).
A principal of equity is that "[a] wrongdoer should not be permitted to profit from his or her wrong (see Kirschner v KMPG LLP, 15 NY3d 446, 464 ; Campbell v Thomas, 73 AD3d 103, 116-117 [2d Dept 2010]; Beaumont v American Can Co., 215 AD3d 249 [1d Dept 1995])." (Norwest Bank Minn. N.A. v E.M.V. Realty Corp., 84 AD3d 835, 836 [2d Dept 2012]).
including a loan modification, if possible" (CPLR 3408 [f]).
any specific remedy for a party's failure" to do so (Hon. Mark C.
30 Pace L. Rev 855 at 875 ).
parties may be adjudicated in a timely manner.
Gordon, 158 NYS 2d 248, 249 [Sup Ct, New York County 1954]).
proper motive." Plotti v Fleming, 277 Fed 864, 868 [2d Cir 1960]).
87 AD2d, 752, 753 [1d Dept 1982]). [*10]Usually, a finding of lack of good faith in CPLR Rule 3408 settlement conferences has been determined from the conduct of the mortgagee/plaintiff. "Conduct such as providing conflicting information, refusal to honor agreements, unexcused delay, unexplained charges, and misrepresentations have been held to constitute "bad faith." (Flagstar Bank, FSB v Walker, 37 Misc 3d 312, 318 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2012]). (See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Ruggiero, 39 Misc 3d 1233 (A), at * 6 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2013]; One W. Bank, FSB v Greenhut, 36 Misc 3d 1205 (A), at * 4-5 [Sup Ct, Westchester County 2012]). In the instant action, it is obvious that plaintiff CHASE and its counsel provided conflicting information, unexplained charges and misrepresentations. Clearly, CHASE and its counsel engaged in bad faith, with its "failure to deal honestly, fairly, and openly."
County 2011]; cf. BAC Home Loans v Westervelt, 29 Misc 3d 1224.
of one who so flagrantly demonstrates such obvious bad faith. Further, the Court needs to determine if the bad faith of CHASE and its counsel, Cullen & Dykman is frivolous conduct. 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 (a) states that "the Court, in its discretion may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil action or proceeding who engages in frivolous conduct as defined in this Part, which shall be payable as provided in section 130-1.3 of this Subpart." Further, it states in 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 (b), that "sanctions may be imposed upon any attorney appearing in the action or upon a partnership, firm or corporation with which the attorney is associated."
It is clear that CHASE's representations that it was the plaintiff in the instant action "is [*12]completely without merit in law" and "asserts material factual statements that are false."
In Levy v Carol Management Corporation (260 AD2d 27, 33 [1st Dept 1999]) the Court stated that in determining if sanctions are appropriate the Court must look at the broad pattern of conduct by the offending attorneys or parties. Further, "22 NYCRR 130-1.1 allows us to exercise our discretion to impose costs and sanctions on an errant party . . ." Levy at 34, held that "[s]anctions are retributive, in that they punish past conduct. They also are goal oriented, in that they are useful in deterring future frivolous conduct not only by the particular parties, but also by the Bar at large."
The Court, in Kernisan, M.D. v Taylor (171 AD2d 869 [2d Dept 1991]), noted that the intent of the Part 130 Rules "is to prevent the waste of judicial resources and to deter vexatious litigation and dilatory or malicious litigation tactics (cf. Minister, Elders & Deacons of Refm. Prot. Church of City of New York v 198 Broadway, 76 NY2d 411; see Steiner v Bonhamer, 146 Misc 2d 10) [Emphasis added]." The instant action, with CHASE, the improper plaintiff, engaging in bad faith is "a waste of judicial resources."
In Navin v Mosquera (30 AD3d 883 [3d Dept 2006]), the Court instructed that when considering if specific conduct is sanctionable as frivolous, "courts are required to examine whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent [or] should have been apparent' (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c])." The Court, in Sakow ex rel. Columbia Bagel, Inc. v Columbia Bagel, Inc. (6 Misc 3d 939, 943 [Sup Ct, New York County 2004]), held that "[i]n assessing whether to award sanctions, the Court must consider whether the attorney adhered to the standards of a reasonable attorney (Principe v Assay Partners, 154 Misc 2d 702 [Sup Ct, NY County 1992])."
Therefore, the Court will examine the conduct of plaintiff CHASE and plaintiff's counsel, in a hearing, pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1, to determine if plaintiff CHASE and plaintiff's present counsel, Jennean Rogers, Esq. and her firm, Cullen & Dykman LLP engaged in frivolous conduct, and to allow plaintiff CHASE and plaintiff's present counsel, Jennean Rogers, Esq. and her firm, Cullen & Dykman LLP a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
ORDERED, that Ronald David Bratt, Esq., my Principal Law Clerk, is directed to serve this order by first-class mail, upon: Jamie Dimon, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of plaintiff, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 270 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017; Jennean Rogers, Esq., CULLEN & DYKMAN LLP, 100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Garden City, New York 11530; CULLEN & DYKMAN LLP, 100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Garden City, New York 11530; and Yolande I. Nicholson, Esq., 26 Court Street, Suite 602, Brooklyn, New York 11242.

References: § 431
 § 1821
 § 130
 § 130
 § 1006
 § 130
 § 130
 § 130