Preview
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2022 09:36 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51452
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
RICHARD VON DER LIETH,
P laintif.f, AFFIRMATION IN
SUPPORT AND
OPPOSITION
-against-
BARBARA GIORDANO A/Kl A BARBARA
LEONAGGEO A/Kl A BARBARA GIORDANO- Index No. 2021-51452
LEONAGGEO, ROGER LEONAGGEO; JACK
GIORDANO; M-M2 RE HOLDINGS 4, LLC; H&L
EQUINE, LLC; PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, LLC.; RAZOR CAPITAL II, LLC
A/PIO CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A.; CATANIA
MAHON, MILLIGRAM & RIDER, PLLC, "JOHN
DOE #1-10" AND "JANE DOE# 1-10" AS POSSIBLE
HEIRS AND DISTRIBUTEES OF THE INTEREST
OF JACK GIORDANO, IF DECEASED, "JOHN
DOE #1-10" AND "JANE DOE #1-10", said names
being fictitious parties intended being possible tenants
or occupants of premises, corporations, other entities
or persons who claim, or may claim, a lien against
the premises,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
GUNILLA PEREZ-F ARINGER, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the court
of the State of New York, affirms the following on the penalties of perjury:
1. I am the attorney for the defendants herein, BARBARA GIORDANO-LEONAGGEO and
ROGER LEONAGGEO (collectively "the Leonaggeos", or "Defendants"), and as such I
am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this litigation.
2. I submit this affirmation in opposition to the motion for summary judgment Plaintiff, in
opposition to the cross-claim by Defendant M-M2 RE Holdings 4, LLC ("Holdings 4" or
1 of 8
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2022 09:36 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51452
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2022
"Michael Mil ea", the sole owner of said company) and in support of Defendants' motion
for an order
a) removing Jack Giordano and H&L Equine, LLC from the case; and
b) dismissing the within action against Defendants pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(l) and
CPLR 3211(a)(7); and
c) denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and
d) declaring the promissory note void; and
e) staying the cross-claim by Defendant M-M2 RE Holdings 4, LLC, pending appeal;
and
f) for any such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper.
3. This case is the latest action in a long and labyrinthine history of litigation brought by
lenders involved with several parcels of property owned or formerly owned by the
Leonaggeos, who are third-generation horse farmers and breeders in the hamlet of
Stanfordville, County of Dutchess, State of New York.
As to the mortgage to von der Lieth
4. The within case concerns a parcel of land known as 107 Homan Road ("Land Parcel" or
"Property") although, inexplicably, the actual address of the property is not stated
anywhere in the documents submitted by Plaintiff, including the Promissory Note, which,
incongruously, does not state a property description or address at all.
5. On December 22, 2015 the parties to this case executed a promissory note ("Note", Ex.
A) in the amount of$35,000 secured by a mortgage (Ex. B) on the property at issue, Section
2
2 of 8
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2022 09:36 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51452
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2022
135200, Block 669-00, Lot 533189-0000 in the hamlet of Stanfordville, County of
Dutchess, State of New York.
6. The Property is a 101-acre tract of land with an estimated value of at least $1 Million,
which is used by Defendants for their business of breeding and boarding horses. The
Mortgage states the property address only as "Homan Road, Stanfordville, New York
12581" (Ex. B), while the promissory does not state any address at all, but only states that
it is "secured by, and entitled to the benefits of, that certain mortgage, dated as of the date
hereof ('the Mortgage') between maker and payee." (Ex. A).
7. The fact that the property address is only stated as "Homan Road" in the mortgage is,at
the very least, confusing, on account of the fact that two other parcels of land owned and
formerly owned by Defendants are also located on Homan Road. One of those properties,
the "House Parcel", with the address 150 Homan Road, is an 18-acre parcel of land with a
one-family dwelling located directly adjacent to the Land Parcel. The House Parcel is Mr.
and Mr. Leonaggeo's home.
8. The House Parcel is the subject of the case M-M2 Holdings 1, LLC v. Barbara Giordano-
Leonaggeo et al., Index No. 50487/2018 ("House Parcel Case").This case is currently on
an appeal in the Second Department under Docket No. 2021-00930 ("Land Parcel
Appeal"), from a judgment of foreclosure in favor ofM-M2 RE Holdings 1, which is also
wholly owned and operated by Michael Milea.
As to the cross-claim by M-M2 RE Holdings 4, LLC
9. Upon information and belief Mr. Milea is the sole owner and operator of at least 29 other
holding companies, in addition to M-M2 RE Holdings 4 and M-M2 RE Holdings 1.
3
3 of 8
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2022 09:36 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51452
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2022
10. In addition to the within case and the House Parcel case, a motion by Mr. Milea to quiet
title to the Land Parcel was recently granted by Judge Michael G. Hayes in the case M-
M2 Holdings 4, LLC v. Barbara Giordano-Leonaggeo et al., Index No. 2018-5067, on
December 20, 2021 ("Mil ea Land Parcel Case") declaring Mil ea the sole owner of the Land
Parcel. Judge Hayes' order is attached as Ex. E. As soon as the Judgment of Foreclosure
has been entered it is Defendants' intention to appeal said order. We respectfully request
that Mr. Milea's cross-claim in this action be stayed pending the upcoming appeal.
11. The gravamen of the Mil ea Land Parcel case is that the property was fraudulently conveyed
to Defendant herein, Holdings 4 (Milea) by means of high-pressure tactics that induced
them to sell the 10 I-acre Land Parcel with an estimated value of at least $1 Million, to him
for $25,000 as a condition for a loan to save their home, the House Parcel, from tax
foreclosure, on October 11, 2016. Further details about these transactions can be found in
the appellate brief in the House Parcel appeal (Ex. D) and our Memorandum of Law in the
Mil ea Land Parcel case (Ex. F).
12. At the time when Defendants were pressured into selling the Land Parcel for a tiny fraction
of its value to Defendant Milea in order to save their home, they were made to believe that
the mortgage at issue herein to Mr. von der Lieth was assumed by Milea as part of the
transaction, as explained by Ms. Giordano in her affidavit.
13. As the Court can see, the deed for the Land Parcel to Milea (Ex. G), dated October 11,
2016, states that the "Premises are not subject to a credit line mortgage", which made the
Leonaggeos, acting prose, believe that the mortgage to von der Lieth had been paid off as
part of the transaction.
4
4 of 8
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2022 09:36 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51452
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2022
The mortgage to von der Lieth was obtained by fraudulent inducement
14. In addition to these serious misrepresentations it is clear that the mortgage to Plaintiff was
obtained by fraudulent inducement and therefore must be declared void. As discussed by
Ms. Giordano in her affidavit, in addition to the promissory note and the mortgage, the
Leonaggeos were induced to enter into a "Letter Agreement" with Mr. von der Lieth. (Ex.
C).
15. Before signing the Letter Agreement it was explained to Defendants that they were not to
worry, because in the event of default, they would not lose the entire tract of land to
Plaintiff because, as the Letter Agreement state in pertinent part:
[T]he Payee has agreed that in the event of a default under the Note
and/or the Mortgage, and provided that the Maker shall provide its full
cooperation to the Payee, Payee shall seek to subdivide the Property ...and
create an independent parcel of land ... ".
2. Subdivision. In the event the Maker shall default in the terms and
conditions of the Note and/or the Mortgage, the Payee shall have all of its
rights and remedies under the Note, the Mortgage, at law or inequity.
Notwithstanding the foregoing to the contrary, the Payee shall seek to obtain
the Subdivision promptly following the default by the maker, and provided
the Maker shall cooperate in full with the Payee in seeking to obtain the
Subdivision, including executing any subdivision documents and
applications ...
3. Deed-in-Lieu. In the event the Payee obtains the Subdivision
creating the Parcel, the Maker shall promptly transfer the parcel to the payee
by deed in lieu of the foreclosure of the Property. Upon receipt and proper
filing of the deed to the Parcel, the Payee shall deliver a satisfaction of the
Mortgage in recordable form to the Maker.
To the Letter Agreement is attached a map where the intended
subdivision of the land to create a deed-in-lieu is marked. Id.
16. Reassured by this promise they agreed to execute the mortgage in the amount of $35,000
to von der Lieth to bring them out of the highly pressured financial situation they found
themselves in at the time.
5
5 of 8
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2022 09:36 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51452
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2022
17. However, the promises made in the Letter Agreement are specifically voided by the
language in the promissory note (Ex. A), a document that clearly takes precedence over
the Letter Agreement. The Note states in pertinent part:
Maker hereby waives diligence, presentment, demand, protest and
notice of any kind, except as specifically provided herein. No release of any
security for the debt evidenced by this Promissory Note or extension of time
for payment of this Promissory Note or any installment hereof, and no
alteration, amendment or waiver of any provision of this Promissory Note
or any other agreement or instrument relating hereto shall release, modify,
amend, waive, extend, change, discharge, terminate or affect the liability of
Maker and any other person or entity who may become liable for the
payment of all or any part of the debt evidenced by this Promissory Note.
Id. (emphasis added).
18. Therefore, it is clear, based on the documentary evidence presented, that the mortgage to
Plaintiff was obtained by means of fraudulent inducement and therefore must be declared
void, and the case dismissed pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(l).
19. On October 11, 2016 the Land Parcel was deeded to Mr. Milea under the circumstances
briefly mentioned above: the Leonnageos had lost their million-dollar 101-acre land to
Milea for a sales price of $25,000 in order to save their home from being sold at tax
foreclosure action.
20. Because of the repeated assurances that Mil ea would assume the mortgage to von der Lieth,
and because they received no communication of any kind over a period of five years,
Defendants did not think more of the matter, and when they were served with process by
von der Lieth almost five years later, on April 30, 2021 they were in a state of shock. As
explained by Ms. Giordano, her husband was suffering serious medical issues at the time
that required her full attention; in addition the country was in the midst of the Covid
pandemic at the time, and any foreclosure on their mortgage was stayed as a result of the
6
6 of 8
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2022 09:36 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51452
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2022
foreclosure moratorium imposed by Governor Cuomo, which is currently in effect until
January 15, 2022.
21. Because they had filed their Declaration of Covid-19-related Hardship Declaration
("Hardship Declaration") Defendants in good faith believed that no foreclosure
proceedings could be undertaken against them; furthermore, they were stillunder the
impression that rather than losing the entire tract of land to Plaintiff there would be a
subdivision of the land as per the Letter Agreement. (Ex. C).
22. The court is notified that the reason that the Hardship Declaration incorrectly states the
address of the Land Parcel as 150 Homan Road (which is the address of the Land Parcel
and their home), the reason for this is that the only address stated on the Mortgage (Ex. B)
is 150 Homan Road, and therefore they included this address in order to conform with the
Mortgage, fully aware that it was not the correct address of the Land Parcel.
23. On May 24, 2020 Defendants appeared in the within case by having their daughter sending
an email to Plaintiffs counsel containing their hardship declaration and an information
sheet about Covid-19 from the Governor's press office, believing that no further action was
necessary due to the moratorium Said documents are attached as Ex. H.
24. Finally, Plaintiffs motion papers claims that the Covid-19 moratorium is not applicable to
the property at hand. This argument must fail, as any proceedings to challenge a hardship
declaration must be brought by plenary action, as per Administrative Order of the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Courts. (Ex. I).
25. For all these reasons, it is clear that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action and a
defense is founded upon evidentiary evidence. Therefore the case against Defendants must
dismissed, pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(l) and CPLR 321 l(a)(7).
7
7 of 8
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2022 09:36 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51452
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2022
WHEREFORE, Defendants BARBARA GIORDANO-LEONAGGEO and ROGER
LEONAGGEO respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion in its entirety, and deny
Plaintiffs motion in its entirety, together with such other and further relief as this Court may deem
just and proper.
Dated: White Plains, New York
January 4, 2022
unilla Perez-Faringer, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
34 South Broadway, Suite 710
White Plains, New York 10601
(914) 574-3708
faringerlaw@gmail.com
8
8 of 8
Preview
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2022 09:36 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51452 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF DUTCHESS ---------------------------------------------------------------------X RICHARD VON DER LIETH, P laintif.f, AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION -against- BARBARA GIORDANO A/Kl A BARBARA LEONAGGEO A/Kl A BARBARA GIORDANO- Index No. 2021-51452 LEONAGGEO, ROGER LEONAGGEO; JACK GIORDANO; M-M2 RE HOLDINGS 4, LLC; H&L EQUINE, LLC; PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC.; RAZOR CAPITAL II, LLC A/PIO CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A.; CATANIA MAHON, MILLIGRAM & RIDER, PLLC, "JOHN DOE #1-10" AND "JANE DOE# 1-10" AS POSSIBLE HEIRS AND DISTRIBUTEES OF THE INTEREST OF JACK GIORDANO, IF DECEASED, "JOHN DOE #1-10" AND "JANE DOE #1-10", said names being fictitious parties intended being possible tenants or occupants of premises, corporations, other entities or persons who claim, or may claim, a lien against the premises, Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------X GUNILLA PEREZ-F ARINGER, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the court of the State of New York, affirms the following on the penalties of perjury: 1. I am the attorney for the defendants herein, BARBARA GIORDANO-LEONAGGEO and ROGER LEONAGGEO (collectively "the Leonaggeos", or "Defendants"), and as such I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this litigation. 2. I submit this affirmation in opposition to the motion for summary judgment Plaintiff, in opposition to the cross-claim by Defendant M-M2 RE Holdings 4, LLC ("Holdings 4" or 1 of 8 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2022 09:36 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51452 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2022 "Michael Mil ea", the sole owner of said company) and in support of Defendants' motion for an order a) removing Jack Giordano and H&L Equine, LLC from the case; and b) dismissing the within action against Defendants pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(l) and CPLR 3211(a)(7); and c) denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and d) declaring the promissory note void; and e) staying the cross-claim by Defendant M-M2 RE Holdings 4, LLC, pending appeal; and f) for any such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper. 3. This case is the latest action in a long and labyrinthine history of litigation brought by lenders involved with several parcels of property owned or formerly owned by the Leonaggeos, who are third-generation horse farmers and breeders in the hamlet of Stanfordville, County of Dutchess, State of New York. As to the mortgage to von der Lieth 4. The within case concerns a parcel of land known as 107 Homan Road ("Land Parcel" or "Property") although, inexplicably, the actual address of the property is not stated anywhere in the documents submitted by Plaintiff, including the Promissory Note, which, incongruously, does not state a property description or address at all. 5. On December 22, 2015 the parties to this case executed a promissory note ("Note", Ex. A) in the amount of$35,000 secured by a mortgage (Ex. B) on the property at issue, Section 2 2 of 8 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2022 09:36 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51452 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2022 135200, Block 669-00, Lot 533189-0000 in the hamlet of Stanfordville, County of Dutchess, State of New York. 6. The Property is a 101-acre tract of land with an estimated value of at least $1 Million, which is used by Defendants for their business of breeding and boarding horses. The Mortgage states the property address only as "Homan Road, Stanfordville, New York 12581" (Ex. B), while the promissory does not state any address at all, but only states that it is "secured by, and entitled to the benefits of, that certain mortgage, dated as of the date hereof ('the Mortgage') between maker and payee." (Ex. A). 7. The fact that the property address is only stated as "Homan Road" in the mortgage is,at the very least, confusing, on account of the fact that two other parcels of land owned and formerly owned by Defendants are also located on Homan Road. One of those properties, the "House Parcel", with the address 150 Homan Road, is an 18-acre parcel of land with a one-family dwelling located directly adjacent to the Land Parcel. The House Parcel is Mr. and Mr. Leonaggeo's home. 8. The House Parcel is the subject of the case M-M2 Holdings 1, LLC v. Barbara Giordano- Leonaggeo et al., Index No. 50487/2018 ("House Parcel Case").This case is currently on an appeal in the Second Department under Docket No. 2021-00930 ("Land Parcel Appeal"), from a judgment of foreclosure in favor ofM-M2 RE Holdings 1, which is also wholly owned and operated by Michael Milea. As to the cross-claim by M-M2 RE Holdings 4, LLC 9. Upon information and belief Mr. Milea is the sole owner and operator of at least 29 other holding companies, in addition to M-M2 RE Holdings 4 and M-M2 RE Holdings 1. 3 3 of 8 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2022 09:36 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51452 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2022 10. In addition to the within case and the House Parcel case, a motion by Mr. Milea to quiet title to the Land Parcel was recently granted by Judge Michael G. Hayes in the case M- M2 Holdings 4, LLC v. Barbara Giordano-Leonaggeo et al., Index No. 2018-5067, on December 20, 2021 ("Mil ea Land Parcel Case") declaring Mil ea the sole owner of the Land Parcel. Judge Hayes' order is attached as Ex. E. As soon as the Judgment of Foreclosure has been entered it is Defendants' intention to appeal said order. We respectfully request that Mr. Milea's cross-claim in this action be stayed pending the upcoming appeal. 11. The gravamen of the Mil ea Land Parcel case is that the property was fraudulently conveyed to Defendant herein, Holdings 4 (Milea) by means of high-pressure tactics that induced them to sell the 10 I-acre Land Parcel with an estimated value of at least $1 Million, to him for $25,000 as a condition for a loan to save their home, the House Parcel, from tax foreclosure, on October 11, 2016. Further details about these transactions can be found in the appellate brief in the House Parcel appeal (Ex. D) and our Memorandum of Law in the Mil ea Land Parcel case (Ex. F). 12. At the time when Defendants were pressured into selling the Land Parcel for a tiny fraction of its value to Defendant Milea in order to save their home, they were made to believe that the mortgage at issue herein to Mr. von der Lieth was assumed by Milea as part of the transaction, as explained by Ms. Giordano in her affidavit. 13. As the Court can see, the deed for the Land Parcel to Milea (Ex. G), dated October 11, 2016, states that the "Premises are not subject to a credit line mortgage", which made the Leonaggeos, acting prose, believe that the mortgage to von der Lieth had been paid off as part of the transaction. 4 4 of 8 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2022 09:36 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51452 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2022 The mortgage to von der Lieth was obtained by fraudulent inducement 14. In addition to these serious misrepresentations it is clear that the mortgage to Plaintiff was obtained by fraudulent inducement and therefore must be declared void. As discussed by Ms. Giordano in her affidavit, in addition to the promissory note and the mortgage, the Leonaggeos were induced to enter into a "Letter Agreement" with Mr. von der Lieth. (Ex. C). 15. Before signing the Letter Agreement it was explained to Defendants that they were not to worry, because in the event of default, they would not lose the entire tract of land to Plaintiff because, as the Letter Agreement state in pertinent part: [T]he Payee has agreed that in the event of a default under the Note and/or the Mortgage, and provided that the Maker shall provide its full cooperation to the Payee, Payee shall seek to subdivide the Property ...and create an independent parcel of land ... ". 2. Subdivision. In the event the Maker shall default in the terms and conditions of the Note and/or the Mortgage, the Payee shall have all of its rights and remedies under the Note, the Mortgage, at law or inequity. Notwithstanding the foregoing to the contrary, the Payee shall seek to obtain the Subdivision promptly following the default by the maker, and provided the Maker shall cooperate in full with the Payee in seeking to obtain the Subdivision, including executing any subdivision documents and applications ... 3. Deed-in-Lieu. In the event the Payee obtains the Subdivision creating the Parcel, the Maker shall promptly transfer the parcel to the payee by deed in lieu of the foreclosure of the Property. Upon receipt and proper filing of the deed to the Parcel, the Payee shall deliver a satisfaction of the Mortgage in recordable form to the Maker. To the Letter Agreement is attached a map where the intended subdivision of the land to create a deed-in-lieu is marked. Id. 16. Reassured by this promise they agreed to execute the mortgage in the amount of $35,000 to von der Lieth to bring them out of the highly pressured financial situation they found themselves in at the time. 5 5 of 8 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2022 09:36 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51452 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2022 17. However, the promises made in the Letter Agreement are specifically voided by the language in the promissory note (Ex. A), a document that clearly takes precedence over the Letter Agreement. The Note states in pertinent part: Maker hereby waives diligence, presentment, demand, protest and notice of any kind, except as specifically provided herein. No release of any security for the debt evidenced by this Promissory Note or extension of time for payment of this Promissory Note or any installment hereof, and no alteration, amendment or waiver of any provision of this Promissory Note or any other agreement or instrument relating hereto shall release, modify, amend, waive, extend, change, discharge, terminate or affect the liability of Maker and any other person or entity who may become liable for the payment of all or any part of the debt evidenced by this Promissory Note. Id. (emphasis added). 18. Therefore, it is clear, based on the documentary evidence presented, that the mortgage to Plaintiff was obtained by means of fraudulent inducement and therefore must be declared void, and the case dismissed pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(l). 19. On October 11, 2016 the Land Parcel was deeded to Mr. Milea under the circumstances briefly mentioned above: the Leonnageos had lost their million-dollar 101-acre land to Milea for a sales price of $25,000 in order to save their home from being sold at tax foreclosure action. 20. Because of the repeated assurances that Mil ea would assume the mortgage to von der Lieth, and because they received no communication of any kind over a period of five years, Defendants did not think more of the matter, and when they were served with process by von der Lieth almost five years later, on April 30, 2021 they were in a state of shock. As explained by Ms. Giordano, her husband was suffering serious medical issues at the time that required her full attention; in addition the country was in the midst of the Covid pandemic at the time, and any foreclosure on their mortgage was stayed as a result of the 6 6 of 8 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2022 09:36 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51452 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2022 foreclosure moratorium imposed by Governor Cuomo, which is currently in effect until January 15, 2022. 21. Because they had filed their Declaration of Covid-19-related Hardship Declaration ("Hardship Declaration") Defendants in good faith believed that no foreclosure proceedings could be undertaken against them; furthermore, they were stillunder the impression that rather than losing the entire tract of land to Plaintiff there would be a subdivision of the land as per the Letter Agreement. (Ex. C). 22. The court is notified that the reason that the Hardship Declaration incorrectly states the address of the Land Parcel as 150 Homan Road (which is the address of the Land Parcel and their home), the reason for this is that the only address stated on the Mortgage (Ex. B) is 150 Homan Road, and therefore they included this address in order to conform with the Mortgage, fully aware that it was not the correct address of the Land Parcel. 23. On May 24, 2020 Defendants appeared in the within case by having their daughter sending an email to Plaintiffs counsel containing their hardship declaration and an information sheet about Covid-19 from the Governor's press office, believing that no further action was necessary due to the moratorium Said documents are attached as Ex. H. 24. Finally, Plaintiffs motion papers claims that the Covid-19 moratorium is not applicable to the property at hand. This argument must fail, as any proceedings to challenge a hardship declaration must be brought by plenary action, as per Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts. (Ex. I). 25. For all these reasons, it is clear that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action and a defense is founded upon evidentiary evidence. Therefore the case against Defendants must dismissed, pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(l) and CPLR 321 l(a)(7). 7 7 of 8 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2022 09:36 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51452 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2022 WHEREFORE, Defendants BARBARA GIORDANO-LEONAGGEO and ROGER LEONAGGEO respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion in its entirety, and deny Plaintiffs motion in its entirety, together with such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Dated: White Plains, New York January 4, 2022 unilla Perez-Faringer, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs 34 South Broadway, Suite 710 White Plains, New York 10601 (914) 574-3708 faringerlaw@gmail.com 8 8 of 8