Court Opinion

ID: 9956354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-01 20:12:23.296532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:53.001873
License: Public Domain

Singh Landscaping & Lawn Sprinkler Corp. v 1650
                  Nostrand Ave Corp.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31026(U)
                     March 1, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 501557/2022
               Judge: Cenceria P. Edwards
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/27/2024 10:00 AM                                                              INDEX NO. 501557/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30                                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

                                                                                     At an IAS Term, Part FRP1 of the Supreme
                                                                                     Court of the State of New York, held in and
                                                                                     for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at
                                                                                     360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on
                                                                                     the 13th day of October, 2022.

            P R E S E N T:
            HON. CENCERIA P. EDWARDS, C.P.A.,
                                       Justice.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------X              ORDER
            SINGH LANDSCAPING AND LAWN SPRINKLER
                                                                                                Calendar #(s): 42
            CORP.,
                                                                                                Index #:        501557/2022
                                                       Plaintiff(s),
                                                                                                Mot. Seq. #(s): 1
                             -against-

            1650 NOSTRAND AVE CORP., U.S. BANK, NATIONAL
            ASSOCIATION, et al.,
                                                         Defendant(s).
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------X
            The following e-filed papers read herein:                                              NYSCEF Doc. No.(s):

            Notice of Motion, and Affidavits (Affirmations) and Exhibits ___ _______12-28______
            Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) and Exhibits ______________   _______n/a________
            Reply Affidavits (Affirmations) and Exhibits _________________   _______n/a________
            ______________________________________________________________________________

                     Plaintiff, Singh Landscaping and Lawn Sprinkler Corp., (“Plaintiff-Singh”) commenced
            this foreclosure action (January 2022) against Defendant-mortgagor 1650 Nostrand Ave Corp.
            (“Defendant-1650 Nostrand”) and others alleging Defendant-1650 Nostrand defaulted in payment
            of its note and mortgage encumbering residential property, 1650 Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn, New
            York (subject “premises”). Thereafter, Plaintiff- Singh moved this Court for grant of summary
            judgment (CPLR 3212[a]), default judgment against “all non-appearing and non-answering
            defendants,” including 1650 Nostrand (CPLR 3215[f]), and an order of reference (RPAPL 1321).

                    Plaintiff-Singh’s President, Agtar (Ricky) Singh, (“Agtar”), in support of this motion,
            submitted a verified summons and complaint, affidavit of regularity, and a lost note affidavit (dated
            January 11, 2022) that alleges, on September 4, 2015, Defendant-1650 Nostrand executed and
            delivered to Singh a note and mortgage for $80,000. All affidavits herein were executed by
            President Agtar who further avers that he never received the original note or a copy of it from his
            attorney, who passed away in June 2019. Plaintiff-Singh’s other documentary submissions include
            a default letter, dated October 15, 2021, which does not indicate the date of default or any of terms
            of the note and a generic mortgage.

                                                                    1

                                                                1 of 5
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/27/2024 10:00 AM                                                    INDEX NO. 501557/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

            CPLR 3212[a]- PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT

                    Pursuant to CPLR 3212[a] “Any party may move for summary judgment in any action,
            after issue has been joined” DeSanctis v Laudeman, 169 A.D.2d 1026, 1027 [3d Dept 1991]
            [dispositive motion made after service of an answer should have been made as one for summary
            judgment under CPLR 3212]; In re Firestone, 113 A.D.2d 750, 750 [2d Dept 1985] [same]). Since
            Plaintiff represents that all Defendants have defaulted in answering or appearing, issue has not
            been joined as to any of the Defendants; therefore, summary judgment is inapplicable.

            CPLR 3215[f] - PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR GRANT OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

                    CPLR 3215(a) permits a plaintiff to seek a default when the defendant has failed to appear,
            plead, or proceed to trial, or when the court orders a dismissal for any other neglect for defendants’
            failure to proceed. A plaintiff seeking leave to enter a default judgment must file proof of: (1)
            service of the summons and the complaint, (2) the facts constituting the claim, and (3) the
            defaulting defendant’s failure to answer or appear, CPLR 3215(f). Capital One, N.A. v Gokhberg,
            189 A.D.3d 978 [2d Dept 2020]. Where a noteholder cannot produce the note to substantiate the
            facts constituting its claim, UCC 3-804 affords the note holder another opportunity to prove its
            ownership of the note, provide the facts which prevent production of the note, and its terms via a
            lost note affidavit. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Anderson, 161 A.D.3d 1043, 1044 [2nd Dept
            2018]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Meisels, 177 A.D.3d 812, 815 [2nd Dept 2019].

                    As set forth herein, Plaintiff-Singh has failed to satisfy its burden of proofs for grant of
            default judgment and an order of reference under CPLR 3215(f) and RPAPL 1321, respectively.
            Plaintiff-Singh does not establish the facts constituting its claim that Defendant-1650 Nostrand
            executed a note of $80,000 and defaulted on its payment obligations. Noticeably, Plaintiff- Singh’s
            lost note affidavit is insufficient to establish its proofs required under UCC 3-804.

            UCC 3-804 - LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT

                    Agtar avers in his lost note affidavit that “Upon information and belief, the Note was lost
            or destroyed after my attorney's death in June 2019” (NYSCEF doc. #22, ¶10). Agtar identifies
            Plaintiff-Singh’s prior attorney as “Akhilesh Krishna” or “Mr. Krishna” and he further explains
            his attempt to obtain possession and/or information regarding the note stating, inter alia.

                   “I am advised that Mr. Krishna passed away on or about June 11, 2019” (id., ¶6).

                   “After Mr. Krishna's death, I went to his office. There was another attorney there named
                   Darmin Bachu. He told me that the files were removed from the office by Mr. Krishna's
                   wife, Kaplana Jain. I contacted Mrs. Krishna, and she told me that she did not have the

                                                              2

                                                           2 of 5
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/27/2024 10:00 AM                                                    INDEX NO. 501557/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

                   files. I have requested that my attorneys attempt to subpoena the Note and other documents
                   from the Mortgagor and third parties, and they may be able to obtain these items during
                   discovery, if they have not been destroyed by such parties in an attempt to avoid the debt”
                   (id., ¶9).

                   “Upon information and belief, I did see the Note at or about the time of the loan closing on
                   September 4, 2015, and the recorded Mortgage references it” (id., ¶11).

                    Foremost, Agtar did not provide a statement from the current attorney, located in his prior
            attorney’s (Mr. Krishna’s) office, or from Mr. Krishna’s wife to verify his conversations of Mr.
            Krishna’s demise. Also, Agtar does not state who informed him of Mr. Krishna’s death, but
            vaguely states, “I am advised that Mr. Krishna passed away on or about June 11, 2019”. Given
            today’s advanced technology, Agtar could have verified his prior attorney’s death via public
            internet searches or, at least, an affidavit from the persons he alleged he spoke with. Moreover,
            Agtar refers to Mr. Krishna’s wife by two very different names first “Kaplana Jain” and then “Mrs.
            Krishna” leading this Court to question the identity of the person with whom Agtar spoke. Agtar’s
            reliance on the one-time, undated, conversation with Mr. Krishna’s wife (Kaplana Jain or Mrs.
            Krishna) does not indicate a reasonable attempt to locate the files.

                    Noticeably, Agtar did not provide the date he went to his prior’s attorney office, or the date
            and method/manner (phone, in person, etc.) in which he spoke to his prior attorney’s wife.
            Moreover, the lost note affidavit, dated January 11, 2022, failed to explain “when” the search was
            conducted or how/when the loss was discovered, as it arbitrarily states that this was “after” his
            prior attorney’s death, which was in June 2019, nearly 2½ years before Agtar notarized the lost
            note affidavit in support of and commencement of the action.

                    Agtar’s lost note affidavit failed to establish, and this Court could not ascertain: when the
            search for the note occurred; how, or when, the note was lost; when Agtar learned the note was
            lost; and when he spoke with Mr. Krishna’s wife and the attorney who took over Mr. Krishna’s
            office. Agtar did not provide any details of his search, just vague and conclusory statements. U.S.
            Bank N.A. v Kohanov, 189 A.D.3d 921 [2nd Dept 2020]. Thus, Plaintiff - Singh has not satisfied
            its burden of proof to provide facts which prevent production of the note, UCC 3-804.

                    Also, UCC 3-804 requires Plaintiff-Singh to set forth the terms of the note; a copy of the
            note would allow this Court to corroborate evidence of the note’s terms. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust
            Co. v Anderson, supra. Agtar attended the closing, and states that he never took possession of the
            note or received copy of it. He avers in his lost note affidavit that he saw the note at the closing,
            yet failed to state who signed the note on behalf of the corporation- Defendant-1650 Nostrand nor
            did he include the notes’ terms in his lost note affidavit.

                                                              3

                                                           3 of 5
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/27/2024 10:00 AM                                                      INDEX NO. 501557/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

                     Agtar’s in his affidavit of regularity avers that he authorized his current attorney to issue a
            demand letter. Plaintiff-Singh’s attorney demand letter to Defendant-1650 Nostrand, dated
            October 15, 2021, does not state the date of the default, or any of the note’s terms; it regurgitates
            information from the generic mortgage, which does not contain any terms of the note. The default
            letter states $80,000 is the principal amount loaned and recites the mortgage’s boilerplate language
            that refers to the loan documents.

                     It is well established that a plaintiff cannot maintain an action solely on the mortgage
            documents alone, as “a mortgage is merely security for a debt or other obligation and cannot exist
            independently of the debt or obligation”. FGB Realty Advisors, Inc. v. Parisi, 265 A.D.2d 297
            [2nd Dept 1999]. Plaintiff-Singh, as its attempts herein, cannot establish the existence of the note
            or its terms via its skeleton generic mortgage.

                    Plaintiff- Singh claims it loaned Defendant-1650 Nostrand $80,000 in September 2015, but
            Defendant-1650 Nostrand never made any payments and defaulted on the entire amount of the
            loan 6 years later (this Court notes the default letter, dated October 2021, does not state the date
            of default). Without the original note or a copy or any details of the terms of the note, Plaintiff-
            Singh cannot substantiate whether Defendant-1650 Nostrand defaulted on its payment obligations.
            A default in payment may be established by, among other possibilities, an affidavit from "a person
            having [personal] knowledge of the facts" or documents that meet the requirements of the business
            records exception to the rule against hearsay. U.S. Bank N.A. v. Zakarin, 208 A.D.3d 1275, 1276
            [2nd Dept 2022]. In addition to Plaintiff- Singh not stating the date of Defendant-1650 Nostrand’s
            default in payment and the amount due (in intervals, or at one time), oddly, Plaintiff-Singh failed
            to include any evidence (a copy of the check, or wire, bank statements, or any business records) to
            substantiate that it advanced $80,000 to Defendant-1650 Nostrand in support of the existence of a
            note or its terms and that a default in payment occurred.

                   Consequently, Plaintiff-Singh has failed to meet its burden of proofs under UCC 3-804.

            CPLR 3215[f] - DEFAULT JUDGMENT & RPAPL 1321 - ORDER OF REFERENCE

                    To demonstrate the facts constituting the cause of action, a plaintiff need only submit
            sufficient proofs to enable a court to determine if the cause of action is viable, since "defaulters
            are deemed to have admitted all factual allegations contained in the complaint and all reasonable
            inferences that flow from them". Capital One, N.A. v Gokhberg, supra.

                    Agtar’s conclusory statements are self-serving, as the verified complaint, lost note
            affidavit, affidavit of regularity, letter of default, and mortgage do not contain a scintilla of
            information regarding the terms of the note and/or Defendant-1650 Nostrand’s date of default.
            Specifically, Agtar’s affidavits are wholly silent as to the actual terms (length) of the note, the

                                                               4

                                                           4 of 5
[* 4]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/27/2024 10:00 AM                                                    INDEX NO. 501557/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

            interest rate, the maturity date, the due dates of the first, intermediate, or last payments, or the
            interval (number) of payments due and the missed payment(s) date(s) that triggered a default.

                    A plaintiff establishes its entitlement to an order of reference based on its “submission of
            the mortgage, the unpaid note, the complaint, other proof setting forth the facts establishing the
            claim, an affidavit of an individual authorized to act on its behalf attesting to the default on the
            note, and proof that the defendant failed to answer within the time allowed.” RPAPL 1321; CPLR
            3215(f); Citimortgage Inc. v Gill, 165 A.D.3d 623, 623-624 [2nd Dept 2018].

                    This Court may determine legal conclusions from Plaintiff- Singh’s complaint and facts
            alleged. Dyno v Rose, 280 A.D.2d at 698, 687 [3rd Dept 1999]. Furthermore, this Court has
            discretion in determining whether Plaintiff has met its burden of proofs in stating a prima facie
            cause of action. Green v. Dolphy Const. Co., 187 A.D.2d 635, 636, [2nd Dept 1992].

                    Noticing blatant defects in Plaintiff-Singh’s lost note affidavit, and its failure to submit a
            copy of the note, this Court examined Plaintiff- Singh’s documentary submissions for satisfactory
            proof of its facts constituting the claim. Plaintiff-Singh has not submitted sufficient proofs to
            enable this Court to determine whether its cause of action is viable; specifically, that Defendant -
            1650 Nostrand executed a note in Plaintiff Singh’s favor and defaulted on its payment
            obligations/terms.

            CONCLUSION

                   Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff-Singh’s request for a Default Judgment and

            Order of reference is denied.

                   The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.

                                                                    E N T E R:

            Dated: March 1, 2024

                                                                    ________________________________

                                                                    Hon. Cenceria P. Edwards, JSC, CPA

                                                              5

                                                           5 of 5
[* 5]