Legal Document: Franklin Torres v. Nationstar Mortgage Llc Dba Mr. Cooper, In Its Own Capacity And On Behalf Of Hsbc Mortgage Corporation And Its Assigns And Successors In Interest

On October 15, 2023 a EXHIBIT(S) - M (Motion #001) - Exhibit M_Quiet Title Action Summons and Complaint was filed involving a dispute between Franklin Torres, and Nationstar Mortgage Llc Dba Mr. Cooper, In Its Own Capacity And On Behalf Of Hsbc Mortgage Corporation And Its Assigns And Successors In Interest, for Real Property - Other (Quiet title FAPA law) in the District Court of Queens County.

Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 10:29 AM INDEX NO. 721681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023

EXHIBIT M
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023
10/15/2023 10:29
01:50 AM INDEX NO. 721681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
10/15/2023

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS

Franklin Torres, SUMMONS
Plaintiff,
v. Subject premises: 10469 Roosevelt
Avenue, Corona NY 11368
Nationstar Mortgage LLC dba Mr.
Cooper, in its own capacity and on behalf Venue: Location of the subject
of HSBC Mortgage Corporation and its property in Queens County
assigns and successors in interest,
Defendant,
-----------------------------------------------/

To the above-named Defendant:

You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon Plaintiff's attorney an answer to the

complaint in this action within twenty days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day

of service, or within thirty days after service is complete if this summons is not personally

delivered to you within the State of New York. In case of your failure to answer, judgment will be

taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.

Dated: Queens, New York
October 15, 2023
By: LIZARRAGA LAW FIRM, PLLC

______________________________
William Robert Lizarraga, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
3753 90TH Street, Ste. 3
Jackson Heights, NY 11372
Phone (917) 396-4601 x 14
Fax (917) 396-4608
wlizarraga.lawfirm@gmail.com
Fightforeclosureamerica.com

1 of 2
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023
10/15/2023 10:29
01:50 AM INDEX NO. 721681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
10/15/2023

TO:

Nationstar Mortgage LLC
NY Division of Corporation
Department of State
99 Washington Ave.
Albany, NY 12231

Notice: The nature of the action is to quiet title to the subject premises known as and located at
10469 Roosevelt Avenue, Corona NY 11368, Land Records.

Relief Sought: Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive, Equitable, Monetary and Punitive Judicial
Determination. Upon your failure to appear and answer, judgment will be taken against you by
default, together with such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

2 of 2
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023
10/15/2023 10:29
01:50 AM INDEX NO. 721681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
10/15/2023

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS

Franklin Torres, VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
v. Subject premises: 10469 Roosevelt
Avenue, Corona NY 11368
Nationstar Mortgage LLC dba Mr.
Cooper, in its own capacity and on Venue: Location of the subject
behalf of HSBC Mortgage Corporation property in Queens County
and its assigns and successors in interest,
Defendant,
-----------------------------------------------/

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff by his attorney, William Robert

Lizarraga, Esq., complaining of the Defendant, respectfully alleges, upon information and

belief, as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action brought by Plaintiff for declaratory judgment, injunctive and

equitable relief, and for compensatory, special, general and punitive damages.

2. Plaintiff, homeowner, disputes the title and ownership of the real property in

question known as and located at 10469 Roosevelt Avenue, Corona NY 11368, and located in

the County of Queens and State of New York (hereinafter referred to as the “Property”) in

the Queens land records, which is the subject of this action.

3. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant cannot enforce the subject mortgage because

the statute of limitations has run, rendeing the note and mortgage unenforceable.

4. Plaintiff alleges an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the

Plaintiff and Defendant, and each of them. Plaintiff desires a judicial determination and

declaration of its rights with regard to the Property and the corresponding Note and

Mortgage.

1 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023
10/15/2023 10:29
01:50 AM INDEX NO. 721681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
10/15/2023

5. Plaintiff also seeks redress from Defendant identified herein below for

damages, for other injunctive relief, and for cancellation of written instruments based upon:

a. The passage of time of the statute of limitations renders the subject note and

mortgage unenforceable.

b. An invalid and unperfected security interest in Plaintiff’s Property hereinafter

described;

c. An incomplete and ineffectual perfection of a security interest in Plaintiff’

Property;

d. A void or voidable Mortgage due to the statute of limitations, for which there

is a reasonable apprehension that, if left outstanding, may cause a serious injury.

THE PARTIES

7. Plaintiff is now, and at all times relevant to this action, resident of the

Judicial District of Queens, State of New York, and the owner of the Property by Deed

recorded in the Queens land records.

8. Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC dba Mr. Cooper, in its own capacity

and on behalf of HSBC Mortgage Corporation and its assigns and successors in interest

(hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” and/or “Nationstar”), on information and belief, is a

banking association with branches in New York.

9. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was and remains the owner of

the Property.

10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times

herein mentioned, the Defendant was the agent, employee, servant and/or the joint-venturer

of the remaining Defendant, and each of them, and in doing the things alleged herein

below, were acting within the course and scope of such agency, employment and/or joint

2 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023
10/15/2023 10:29
01:50 AM INDEX NO. 721681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
10/15/2023

venture.

JURISDICTION

11. The transactions and events which are the subject matter of this Complaint all

occurred within the JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF QUEENS, State of New York.

12. The Property is located within the JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF QUEENS, State of

New York.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND BACKGROUND

13.- Plaintiff executed a series of documents, including but not limited to a Note

and Mortgage, securing the Property in the amount of note, executed on November 7, 2005,

in the amount of $455,000, in favor of the original creditor/lender American Brokers

Conduit (hereinafter referred to as “the original lender” or “ABC”). A copy of the note is

attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and a copy of the mortgage is attached hereto as Exhibit

“B”.

14. The original default date is April 1, 2010, as described on paragraph five of

the first complaint filed on July 14, 2011, bearing the Index No. 16830/2011 (a copy of the

first complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”, hereinafter referred to as “the first

action”).

15. On December 16, 2013, the action was discontinued, a copy of the

stipulation discontinuing the action is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”.

16. On February 24, 2015, Defendant instituted a second action regarding the

same note and mortgage (a copy of the summons and complaint is attached hereto as

Exhibit “E”, hereinafter referred to as “the second action”).

17. On September 2, 2015, the second action was discontinued (a copy of the

3 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023
10/15/2023 10:29
01:50 AM INDEX NO. 721681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
10/15/2023

notice of discontinuance is attached hereto as Exhibit “F”).

18. After 6 years of the acceleration date (July 14, 2011), Plaintiff decided to file

a third complaint with regards to the same default date, which was filed on June 27, 2019,

bearing the Index No. 711248/2019 (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “G”,

hereinafter referred to as “the third action”).

19. Paragraph 8 of the third complaint (Exhibit “G”) references to a loan

modification signed on or around August 4, 2015 (attached hereto as Exhibit “H”) where

the loan was never “deaccelerated”.

20. Since Plaintiff has filed a third complaint after the expiration of the six-year

statute of limitations period time to file a lawsuit since this debt was originally accelerated

on July 14, 2011 (Exhibit “C”), and the third complaint was filed on June 27, 2019 (more

than 6 years after the expiration of the statute of limitations).

21. As such, any foreclosure action instituted after the six-year period is abated.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

THE MORTGAGE MUST BE CANCELED AND DISCHARGED DUE TO THE
EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

22. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as

though fully set forth herein.

23. On December 30, 2022, the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (L 2022, ch

821; hereinafter referred to as “FAPA”) was enacted in New York, effectively overturning

the precedent set by Freedom Mortgage Corp. v. Engel, 37 NY3d 1 (2021) and all cases

that previously held a prior discontinuance as a valid deacceleration. Subsection (h) was

added to CPLR 203, rendering any such argument invalid if attempted by the plaintiff.:

4 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023
10/15/2023 10:29
01:50 AM INDEX NO. 721681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
10/15/2023

(h) Claim and action upon certain instruments. Once a cause of action upon an

instrument described in subdivision four of section two hundred thirteen of this

article has accrued, no party may, in form or effect, unilaterally waive, postpone,

cancel, toll, revive, or reset the accrual thereof, or otherwise purport to effect a

unilateral extension of the limitations period prescribed by law to commence an

action and to interpose the claim, unless expressly prescribed by statute.

24. Section 10 of FAPA along with CPLR 213(4) come into effect. Section 10 provides:

§ 10. This act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to all actions

commenced on an instrument described under subdivision four of section two

hundred thirteen of the civil practice law and rules in which a final judgment of

foreclosure and sale has not been enforced. Chapter 821, AB 7737 Relates to the

rights of parties involved in foreclosure actions (New York Court Acts (2022

Edition)).

25. CPLR 213(4)(a) prevents a mortgagee from arguing that its prior acceleration was
improper:
(a) In any action on an instrument described under this subdivision, if the statute of
limitations is raised as a defense, and if that defense is based on a claim that the
instrument at issue was accelerated prior to, or by way of commencement of a prior
action, a plaintiff shall be estopped from asserting that the instrument was not validly
accelerated, unless the prior action was dismissed based on an expressed judicial
determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the instrument was not
validly accelerated. Chapter 821, AB 7737 Relates to the rights of parties involved in
foreclosure actions (New York Court Acts (2022 Edition)).

26. Both the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) and RPAPL § 1501(4)

stipulate that a person who owns real property with a mortgage can “seek to cancel and

5 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023
10/15/2023 10:29
01:50 AM INDEX NO. 721681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
10/15/2023

discharge that encumbrance” when the time period prescribed by the relevant statute of

limitations for initiating a foreclosure action has expired. (BH 263, LLC v Bayview Loan

Servicing, LLC, 175 A.D.3d 1375, 1376 [2d Dept 2019]). In Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.

v. MacPherson, 200 A.D.3d 647 (2nd Dept 2021), the Appellate Division reversed the lower

Court holding that a subsequent deed holder does have standing to assert the statute of

limitations as a defense:

The Supreme Court erred in concluding that Quantuck had no standing to assert a

statute of limitations defense. As the owner of the subject property at the time the

action was commenced, Quantuck had standing to assert a statute of limitations

defense (see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Balderston, 163 A.D.3d 1482 1483, 83 N.Y.S.3d 382;

cf. U.S. Bank N.A. v. Bernice 380 Corp., 186 A.D.3d 1750 1752, 130 N.Y.S.3d 515;

BH 263, LLC v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 175 A.D.3d 1375 1376, 109

N.Y.S.3d 142). Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. MacPherson, 200 A.D.3d 647, 159

N.Y.S.3d 72 (2nd Dept. 2021).

27. In the present case, there is no doubt that the Plaintiff has a valid interest in

the property. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that the Statute of Limitations has

expired, rendering the second case dismissible and necessitating the cancellation of the

encumbrance.

28. The relevant facts before this Court are as follows:

a. July 14, 2011, Defendant’s predecessor in interest filed the first

foreclosure action under index number 16830/2011 (Exhibit “C”).

b. December 16, 2013, the first action was discontinued (Exhibit “D”).

c. February 24, 2015, Defendant’s predecessor in interests filed a new action

6 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023
10/15/2023 10:29
01:50 AM INDEX NO. 721681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
10/15/2023

under the index No. 701718/2015; which was discontinued on September 2,

2015 (see Exhibit “F”).

d. October 05, 2021, the second complaint was filed under index number

722137/2021 (Exhibit “E”).

e. On June 27, 2019, Defendant filed a third action bearing the Index No.

711248/2019 (Exhibit “G”).

29. Defendant’s encumbrance in the subject property must be cancelled and

discharged due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

INTEREST MUST BE CANCELLED

30. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as

though fully set forth herein.

31. Moreover, it is not only the mortgagee who is obligated to cancel and

discharge the encumbrance on the subject property but also required to waive all interest

computations that accrued after the loan was accelerated.

32. Plaintiff further moves this Court pursuant to CPLR 5001(a) and 5501(a)(1),

relying on the decisions of the Second Department in BAC Home Loan Servicing LP v.

Jackson, 159 AD3d 861 (2nd Dept 2018), Prompt Mtg Providers of N. Am. LLC v. Aarour,

155 AD3d 912 (2nd Dept 2017), and Greenpoint Mtge. Corp. v. Lamberti, 155 AD3d 1004

(2nd Dep’t. 2017).

33. Nevertheless, it is important to note that an action to foreclose a mortgage

may only be brought to recover unpaid sums due within the six-year period immediately

preceding the commencement of the action (see §213(4) of the CPLR). Additionally, for a

7 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023
10/15/2023 10:29
01:50 AM INDEX NO. 721681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
10/15/2023

mortgage payable in installments, separate causes of action accrue for each unpaid

installment, and the statute of limitations begins to run from the due date of each installment

(see Wells Fargo Bank, NA. v. Cohen, 80 AD3d 753; Loiacono v. Goldberg, 240 AD2d 476;

Pagano v. Smith, 201 AD 632).

34. However, it is crucial to understand that once a mortgage debt is accelerated,

meaning the entire amount becomes due, the Statute of Limitations begins to run on the

entire debt (see Charter One Bank, FSB v. Leone, 45 AD3d 958 (3rd Dept 2007); EMC

Mtge. Corp. v Patella, 279 AD 2d 604; Lavin v. Elmakiss, 302 AD2d 638; Zinker v. Makler

298 AD 2d 516). In the present case, the Plaintiff accelerated the entire amount due in its

2010 complaint (Exhibit “C”).

35. On February 22, 2023, in GMAT Legal Title Tr. 2014-1 v. Kator, 2023 NY

Slip Op 990 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023) the Second Department held:

Pursuant to CPLR 213(4), an action to foreclose a mortgage is subject to a six-

year statute of limitations (see GSR Mtge. Loan Trust v Epstein, 205 A.D.3d 891, 892;

MLB Sub I, LLC v Clark, 201 A.D.3d 925, 926). Even if the mortgage is payable in

installments, once a mortgage debt is accelerated, the entire amount is due and

payable, and the statute of limitations begins to run on the entire debt (see Bank of N.Y.

Mellon Corp. v Alvarado, 189 A.D.3d 1149, 1150; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v

Adrian, 157 A.D.3d 934, 935). Acceleration occurs, among other ways, when a

foreclosure action is initiated, and the plaintiff explicitly chooses, in the complaint, to

declare the entire amount secured by the mortgage as due. (see Ditech Fin., LLC v

Connors, 206 A.D.3d 694, 697; see Freedom Mtge. Corp. v Engel, 37 N.Y.3d 1, 22).

36. The recently enacted Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act amended CPLR

213(4) by adding, among other things, paragraph (a), which provides that “[i]n any action

8 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023
10/15/2023 10:29
01:50 AM INDEX NO. 721681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
10/15/2023

on an instrument described under this subdivision, if the statute of limitations is raised as a

defense, and if that defense is based on a claim that the instrument at issue was accelerated

prior to, or by way of commencement of a prior action, a plaintiff shall be estopped from

asserting that the instrument was not validly accelerated, unless the prior action was

dismissed based on an expressed judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed

defense, that the instrument was not validly accelerated.”

37. In Freedom Mtge. Corp. v Engel (37 N.Y.3d at 32), the Court of Appeals

held that “where acceleration occurred by virtue of the filing of a complaint in a foreclosure

action, the noteholder's voluntary discontinuance of that action constitutes an affirmative act

of revocation of that acceleration as a matter of law, absent an express, contemporaneous

statement to the contrary by the noteholder.” Accordingly, the Court held that the statute of

limitations did not bar actions to foreclose certain mortgages because the accelerations of

those mortgages that occurred by virtue of the filing of prior foreclosure actions were

revoked by the voluntary discontinuances of the prior actions (see id. at 33-35).

38. However, FAPA had the effect of nullifying this particular holding in Engel.

FAPA amended CPLR 3217, governing the voluntary discontinuance of an action, by

adding a new paragraph (e), which provides that “[i]n any action on an instrument described

under (CPLR 213(4)), the voluntary discontinuance of such action, whether on motion,

order, stipulation or by notice, shall not, in form or effect, waive, postpone, cancel, toll,

extend, revive or reset the limitations period to commence an action and to interpose a

claim, unless expressly prescribed by statute.” We note, in any event, that even prior to the

enactment of FAPA, the discontinuance of the 2007 action would not have been effective to

reset the statute of limitations because the discontinuance did not occur during the six-year

limitations period (see Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Paniagua, 207 A.D.3d 691, 692).

9 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023
10/15/2023 10:29
01:50 AM INDEX NO. 721681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
10/15/2023

39. As noted above, since the loan was accelerated on July 14, 2011, the statute

of limitations (SOL) expired on July 14, 2017; thus, Defendant’s third action was filed after

the expiration of the SOL. In light of this fact and there being no safe harbor for the plaintiff

in FAPA, the mortgagee’s action must be barred from pursuing a foreclosure, and interest

cancelled.

40. As the Court will observe, despite the defendant's objections, the plaintiff

suffered prejudice due to the delay, which resulted in the continued accrual of interest while

both the first action remained unresolved and the second action made no progress.

Therefore, the Court should consider cancelling the mortgage and the accrued interest (see

Onewest Bank, FSB v Michel, 143 AD3d 869, 39 NYS3d 485 [2d Dept 2016], citing Aurora

Loan Servs., LLC v Gross, 139 AD3d 772, 32 NYS3d 248 [2d Dept 2016]; Citimortgage,

Inc. v Espinal, 136 AD3d 857, 23 NYS3d 251 [2d Dept 2016]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v

Alexander, 124 AD3d 838, 4 NYS3d 46 [2d Dept 2015]; Maidenbaum v Ellis Hosp., 47

AD2d 683, 364 NYS2d 233 [3d Dept 1975]), The Court is still empowered upon its own

initiative, to determine that the interest, costs and attorney’s fees on the loan are tolled for a

period of time the Court decides (see Greenpoint Mtge. Corp. v Lamberti, 155 AD3d 1004

(2d Dept 2017).

41. In the instant case, the mortgagee is not entitled to interest from:

42. July 14, 2011 (purchase of the first index number) to June 27, 2019 (the

purchase of the third index number); and/or Waiver of principal and interest from all

amounts due before June 27, 2019 (six years prior the institution of the third action).

43. Similarly, in Greenpoint Mtge. Corp. v. Lamberti, 155 AD3d 1004 (2nd

Dep’t. 2017) the Appellate Division for the Second Department reversed the decision of

10 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023
10/15/2023 10:29
01:50 AM INDEX NO. 721681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
10/15/2023

Hon. Thomas A. Adams and held that plaintiff not entitled to interest during the period of

prosecutorial neglect.

In an action of an equitable nature, the recovery of interest is within the court's

discretion. The exercise of that discretion will be governed by the particular facts in

each case, including any wrongful conduct by either party” (Dayan v York, 51 AD3d

964, 965 [citations omitted]; see CPLR 5001[a]). Here, in view of the lengthy delay by

PE-NC's predecessors in interest in prosecuting this action, PE-NC should recover no

interest for the roughly three-year period of time from when the action was

commenced in 2005 to when the defendant filed a request for judicial intervention in

2008. While PE-NC did not cause this delay, it should not benefit financially, in the

form of accrued interest, from this delay caused by its predecessors in interest.

Furthermore, PE-NC should not recover interest on the counsel fees awarded to it.

Paragraphs 7 and 21 of the mortgage are inconsistent regarding whether interest could

be recovered on counsel fees. Since "ambiguities in a contractual instrument will be

resolved contra proferentem, against the party who prepared or presented it” (151 W.

Assoc. v Printsiples Fabric Corp., 61 NY2d 732, 734), this ambiguity must be

resolved against PE-NC, whose predecessors in interest presented the mortgage.

Moreover, interest awarded under paragraph 7 of the mortgage, on money advanced to

protect the lender's rights in the property, should not have been awarded at the rate of

17%, but at the “Note rate,” which, in this case, was 7.25%.

44. That decision was reaffirmed on March 21, 2018 in BAC Home Loan Servicing LP v.

Jackson, 2018 NY Slip Op 1896 (2nd Dept – March 21, 2018). In reversing Justice Thomas

A. Adams for the second time, the Jackson Court stated that the mortgagee was not entitled

to 8 years of interest and penalties even where the Court initially rejected plaintiff’s RJI:

11 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023
10/15/2023 10:29
01:50 AM INDEX NO. 721681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
10/15/2023

Although the initial October 2010 RJI may have been rejected erroneously, the

plaintiff fails to explain the ensuing four-year delay between the initial October 2010

filing and the subsequent filing on November 6, 2014. Under the unusual

circumstances of this case, since Jackson was prejudiced by this unexplained delay,

during which time interest had been accruing, the interest on the loan should have been

tolled from December 22, 2010 (that is, 60 days after the alleged initial October 2010

RJI was filed, the time period during which a settlement conference would be

scheduled), through the date that the plaintiff filed the subsequent RJI on November 6,

2014 (see Greenpoint Mtge. Corp. v Lamberti, 155 AD3d 1004; Citicorp Trust Bank,

FSB v Vidaurre, 155 AD3d 934, 935; Dayan v York, 51 AD3d 964, 956; Danielowich

v PBL Dev., 292 AD2d 414; Dollar Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v Herbert Kallen, Inc., 91

AD2d 601; South Shore Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v Shore Club Holding Corp., 54

AD2d 978.

45. In Citicorp Trust Bank, FSB v. Vidaurre, 155 AD3d 934 (2nd Dep’t 2017),

the Appellate Division again reversed the trial court and denied interest in accordance with

their decision an ordered the recalculation of interest stating:

Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the

cross motion of the defendant Giftports, Inc., doing business as Jomashop, which was

to toll and cancel interest that accrued to the extent of tolling and canceling interest

that accrued between March 23, 2010, the date of the decision of a prior appeal in this

case, in which this Court affirmed the award of summary judgment to the plaintiff (see

Citicorp Trust Bank, FSB v Vidaurre, 71 A.D.3d 942 [2010]), and November 26,

2014, the date of the referee's report (see Dollar Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v Herbert

Kallen, Inc., 91 A.D.2d 601 [1982]; South Shore Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v Shore Club

12 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023
10/15/2023 10:29
01:50 AM INDEX NO. 721681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
10/15/2023

Holding Corp., 54 A.D.2d 978[1976]; see also Danielowich v PBL Dev., 292 A.D.2d

414, 415 [2002]).

46. In Dayan v York, 51 AD3d 964 (2d Dept 2008) the Court held against a

successor plaintiff stating that 6 years of interest [1995 – 2001] was inequitable and

unconscionable for defendant to be charged given the prior plaintiff's delay in prosecuting

the foreclosure action between. In Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. v E.M.V. Realty Corp., 94

AD3d 835 (2d Dept 2012) held that a bank who received an assignment of the mortgage and

judgment lien from a bank, could not recover interest on the unpaid principal balance of a

mortgage in light of its deliberate acts in triggering the foreclosure action; Danielowich v

PBL Dev., 292 AD2d 414 (2d Dept 2002) – the Second Department tolled the interest for

the five months mortgagee it took to move to confirm referee's report. 49. In Dollar Fed.

Sav. & Loan Assn. v Herbert Kallen, Inc., 91 AD2d 601 (2d Dept 1982) - the Second

Department fixed the date of computation for amounts due at two years prior to date of

referee's report, due to plaintiff's unconscionable delay in moving the matter forward.

47. In South Shore Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v Shore Club Holding Corp., 54

AD2d 978 (2d Dept 1976) – the Second Department held, “If the mortgagee is responsible

for the delay, it should forfeit the interest and other charges”.

48. In an action of an equitable nature, the recovery of interest is within the

court's discretion (see CPLR 5001[a]; Danielowich v PBL Dev., 292 AD2d 414, 415

[2002]). The exercise of that discretion will be governed by the particular facts in each case,

including any wrongful conduct by neither party (see Danielowich v PBL Dev., 292 AD2d at

415; Sloane v Gape, 216 AD2d 285, 286 [1995]; South Shore Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v

Shore Club Holding Corp., 54 AD2d 978 [1976])” (Dayan v York, 51 AD3d 964 [2008]).

Thus, inordinate and unexcused delay in prosecuting a foreclosure action, can result in the

13 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023
10/15/2023 10:29
01:50 AM INDEX NO. 721681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
10/15/2023

disallowance of interest (see Dollar Fed. Says. & Loan Association v Kallen, 91 AD2d 601

[1982]; see also Danielowich v PBL Development, 292 AD2d 414 [2002], supra; Yagamo

Acquisitions, LLC v Baco Development 102 St., 278 AD2d 134 [2000]).

49. In light of the above the Court must toll all interest.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant the

following relief, together with such other and further relief deemed just and proper:

50. An award of compensatory, special and punitive damages in an amount to be

determined above the jurisdciational amount of the lower courts plus costs and

reasonabel attorney fees on the each and every cause of action;

51. An order and judgment declaring that that the mortgage in the amount of

$455,000.00, dated November 7, 2005, encumbering the Property, is cancelled,

discharged, released and of no further force and effect;

52. An order and judgment directing the Queens County Clerk, upon payment of the

proper fees, shall cause the aforesaid mortgage to be cancelled, discharged and

released of record;

53. An order and judgment restraining and enjoining Defendant, their agents, attorneys,

representatives and or their loan servicer, from selling, transferring, endorsing or

assigning the subject mortgage and or representative note in the amount of

$455,000.00; and

54. An order and judgment declaring that the subject mortgage loan and note obligation

are unenforceable and that all of Plaintiff’ obligations under said documents are null

and void.

14 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023
10/15/2023 10:29
01:50 AM INDEX NO. 721681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
10/15/2023

Dated: Queens, New York
August 16th, 2023
By: LIZARRAGA LAW FIRM, PLLC

______________________________
William R. Lizarraga, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
3753 90TH Street, Ste. 3
Jackson Heights, NY 11372
Phone (917) 396-4601 x 14
Fax (917) 396-4608

TO
Nationstar Mortgage LLC
NY Division of Corporation
Department of State
99 Washington Ave.
Albany, NY 12231

15 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023
10/15/2023 10:29
01:50 AM INDEX NO. 721681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
10/15/2023

16 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023
10/15/2023 10:29
01:50 AM INDEX NO. 721681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
10/15/2023

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

William R. Lizarraga, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
3753 90TH Street, Ste. 3
Jackson Heights, NY 11372
Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, the undersigned an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of
the State of New York, certifies that, upon information and belief and reasonable inquiry, the
contentions contained in the annexed documents are not frivolous.

Dated: Queens, New York
October 15, 2023 __________________________
William Robert Lizarraga, Esq.

To:
Nationstar Mortgage LLC
NY Division of Corporation
Department of State
99 Washington Ave.
Albany, NY 12231
_____________________________________/

17 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023
10/16/2023 10:29
10:21 AM INDEX NO. 721681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
10/16/2023

Exhibit “A”
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023
10/16/2023 10:29
10:21 AM INDEX NO. 721681/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31
3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
10/16/2023

Loan No.:M
NOTE

MIN.:

November 21, 2007 GARDEN CITY New York

[Date] [City) [State]

107-08 37TH DRIVE, CORONA, NY 11368
·
[Property Address]

1. BORROWER'S PROMISE TO PAY
In returnfor a loan that I have received, I promise to pay U.S. S 533,000.

Case Info

Judge

Carmen R Velasquez Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

December 22, 2023

Case Filing Date

October 15, 2023

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for Franklin Torres v. Nationstar Mortgage Llc Dba Mr. Cooper, In Its Own Capacity And On Behalf Of Hsbc Mortgage Corporation And Its Assigns And Successors In Interest

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties