Court Opinion

ID: 9958725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:10:03.156184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:39.597806
License: Public Domain

Gross v Bank of Am., N.A.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31105(U)
                      April 2, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 506981/2024
                Judge: Leon Ruchelsman
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 04/02/2024 01:23 PM                                   INDEX NO. 506981/2024
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

           SUPREME COURT 0-F THE STATE OF NEW. Y.ORK
           COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL 8
            -·-------· ----------. -------~- .. _, __ :---------:K
           MENDEL GROSS,
                                                 Peti tion·er,        Decision and order

                           - aga-inst .....

            BANK OF AMERICA, J::! .A.,
                                                 Resp.ondent,               .Apri.l 2, 2024
            --------. -~--- -- -- . - --- ------------- x
            _PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN                                .Motion Seq. #1

                  The p.eti ti oner   has moved- seeking to stay :a fo;r-e_closure s.a_J,e,
            The respondent oppose,s the motion.           Papers were submi tte.c:1 by the

            part_ie:$ and arguments _held.      -After reviewing all the arg..ument-s

            this court riow makes the foilowing determination .
                  .According to the. petit.ion, oti. May a, 2007,. the petitiohEfr

            Mend.el Gros·_s· lJo:t-rowed $.320, 00.0 from the Yesp·ondent Bank _of

            America arid was required to make certain monthly pi:iyrnents for

            thirty years.-.    Th.~ petitioner    executed. a note to Ba-nk o.f Amer.ica
            which was se.cured. by a securi.ty interest in the• capital s:t:.oc:.:k

            owned by petitioner rei:;rarding the premises located at 4"44 Bedford

            Avenue:, Apa:.rtment 18-C in Kin_gs County.          The note was also

            secured by .a UCC-.1 financing statemenL             The petitioner failed to

            :make the payment due July 1, 2011.           On June 23, 20l7 th_e

            respon<tent inf9rmed pet:Ltioner ,of       a notice ·of s.ale .1ndicatin9 th.e
            sale was. s~h~d~led to take plac~ on July 25, 2017.             The

            pet.itiort.e·r commenced an a;ction. -s-eekih_g to- stay the foreclosure

            sp.le.     A.year later the parties entered into a stipulation

            whe.rein the petitioner a-greed t.o certain ·p-a:yoff terms by November

                                                 1 of 4
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/02/2024 01:23 PM                           INDEX NO. 506981/2024
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

            12, 2018.    The petitioner failed to pay by that date and on
            December 20, 2023 the respondent notified petitioner pursuant to

           UCC 9-§611 that he was in default and was subject to a

            foreclosure sale.    Indeed, on January 18, 2024 the respondent

            served petitioner that they intended to conduct an auction and

            sale for the liquidation of the respondent's security interest in

            the petitiQnf;r' s st.ock and proprietary lease on March 14, 2024.
            The petitioner has now moved seeking an injunction to stop that

            sale o:h the grounds the respondent failed to comply with the

            notice requirements of UCC §9-611 and that in any event the

            claims are time barred.

                                      Conclusions of Law

                  It is well settled that the notice and other requirements of

            a UCC 9-§611 non-judicial foreclosure sale, like a sale pursliant

            to RPAPL §1304 is a condition precedent to the commencement of. a

            foreclosure action and the plaintiff bears the burden of

            demonstrating full compliance w.ith those provisions      (Stern-

            Obstfeld v. Bank of America, 30 Misc3d 901, 915 NYS2d 456

            [Supreme Cou~t Ne~ York County 2011]).

                  The petitioner asserts, concerning the ninety day notice,

            that he. ''neyer. received such a notice from the. Respondent or

            anyone else" (see, Affirmation of Mende.1 Gross, ':1[5 [NYSGEF Doc.

            No.   SJ ) . However, notice was s.erved to. the addres.s at 4 44

                                                .2

                                             2 of 4
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/02/2024 01:23 PM                             INDEX NO. 506981/2024
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

            Bedford Avenue Apartment 18'--C, the address of the petitioner.

            Thus, to satisfy the notice requirements of this statute, along

            with RPAPL §1304, the respondent must provide proof of the

            mailing "which can be 'established with proof .of the actual

            mailings, such as affidavits of mailing or domestic return

            receipts with attendant signatures" (see, Citibank N.A., v.

            Conti-Scheurer, 17 2 A.D3d 1 7, 98 NYS3d 2 7 3 [ 2d Dept. , 2019] ) .

            Thns, documents which contain the "' return rece.ipt requested,'

            and the corresponding notice bearing a 20'-digit number identicc3.J

            to the 20-digit bar code on the .envelope, constituted admissible

            evidence sufficient to establish, prim.a faCie, the actual mailing

            of the required notice by certified mail" (see, Wilmington

            Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Hershkowitz, 189 AD3d 1126, 138

            NYS3d 54 [2d·Dept., 2020]).      lri. this case the respondent has

            presented evidence in the form of the return receipt

            .documentation which adequately d.emonstrates proper service.           The

            petitioner has not presented any evidence, other than a bctld
            denial,    raising questions .of fact :whether service was properly

            performed.
                    Furthermore, even if a statute of. limitations applies to the

            service of any such notice; the statute only began once the date

            for payment passed initiating any defaultr namely November 12,

            201B.      Further, any statutes of limitations was tolled for 228:

            days due to the COVID-19 pandemic {see, Ruiz v. Sanchez, 219 AD3d

                                                 3

                                              3 of 4
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/02/2024 01:23 PM                         INDEX NO. 506981/2024
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

            1363, 195 NYS3d 796 [2d Dept., 20231).      Therefore, the notice

            sertred was Surely timely,

                 Consequently, since the notice was timely served and there

           is sufficient evidence of such service, the petitioner has no

            likelihood of success enjoining the sale.      Therefore, the motion

            seeking to enjoin any foreclosure sale is denied.

                 So ordered.

                                   ENTER:

            DATED: April 2, 2024
                   Brooklyn N.Y.            Hon. Leon
                                            JSC
                                                        t.man

                                               4

                                            4 of 4
[* 4]