Answer: Citimortgage, Inc. v. Sarah Mund, Mordechai Katz, Belfour European Closet Inc. D/B/A European Closet And Cabinet, New York State Department Of Taxation And Finance, Nyc Department Of Finance-Parking Violations Bureau, United States Of America, New York City Environmental Control Board, John Doe And Jane Doe

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/26/2014                                                                INDEX NO. 508004/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2014




             SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK:
             COUNTY OF KINGS
             ----------------------------------------------------------------X
                                                                                    INDEX NO.:508004/2013
             CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,

                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                         VERIFIED
                              -against-                                                  ANSWER

             SARAH MUND, MORDECHAI KATZ, BELFOUR
             EUROPEAN CLOSET AND CABINET; NEW YORK
             STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND
             FINANCE; NYC DEPARTMENT OF
             FINANCE-PARKING; UNITED STATES OF
             AMERICA; NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL
             CONTROL BOARD; “JOHN DOE ” and “JANE DOE”
             said names being fictitious, it being the intention
             of the Plaintiff to designate any and all occupants of
             premises being foreclosed,

                                                          Defendants.
             ------------------------------------------------------------------X


                              Defendants       SARAH         MUND        and       MORDECHAI     KATZ   (the

             “defendants”), by their attorney Yolande I. Nicholson, Esq., answer the complaint as

             follows:


                     1.       Defendants deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

             to the allegations contained in paragraphs titled “FIRST”, “SECOND” (except as to

             Sarah      Mund’s      residence),     “THIRD”,          “FIFTH”,      “SEVENTH”,   “EIGHTH”,

             “ELEVENTH”,             “TWELFTH”,            “THIRTEENTH”,             “FOURTEENTH”,       and

             “FIFTEENTH” of the complaint.

                     2.       Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraphs titled, “NINTH”

             and “TENTH”, of the complaint.




 PDF processed with CutePDF evaluation edition www.CutePDF.com
          3.     Deny the allegations of the complaint contained in paragraphs numbered

“FOURTH”, and “SIXTH”, except refer the Court to pertinent documents for their

contents, terms and conditions, and all questions of law at the time of trial.

          4.     Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

allegations contained in paragraph numbered “THIRD”, with respect to defendants other

than defendants Sarah Mund and Mordechai Katz.

          5.     With     respect   to    paragraphs    numbered      “SIXTEENTH”        and

“SEVENTEENTH”, to the extent these statements constitute allegations, defendants deny

these allegations.

                            FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

          6.     (a) Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be

granted.

          (b) Plaintiff fails to set forth any causes of action, fails to seek any cognizable

relief, and fails to meet its burden of making a prima facie case.

                           SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

          7.     Plaintiff lacks standing to sue.

                            THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

          8.     Plaintiff failed to plead that compliance with the provisions of UCC

Article 3 pertaining to negotiable instruments occurred prior to commencement of this

action.




                                                2
                          FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

       9.        (a) Plaintiff lacks the capacity to bring this cause of action or to be before

this Court.

       (b) Plaintiff failed to properly plead its legal authority to sue in this action.

                            FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

       10.       The Court lacks jurisdiction over the person of each of the defendants

SARAH MUND and MORDECHAI KATZ. Plaintiff failed to serve the defendants in

accordance with New York law.

                            SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

       11.       A defense is founded upon documentary evidence.

                          SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

       12.       At the time of the commencement of this action, Plaintiff was not the

assignee of the mortgage that secures the Note.

                               EIGHTH AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSE

       13.       The assignment of mortgage attached to the complaint purporting to assign

the mortgage to the plaintiff is fraudulent, fabricated, or otherwise ineffective.

                           NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

       14.       As plaintiff is not the holder of the Note, the purported assignment of the

mortgage attached to plaintiff’s complaint is invalid, thus rendering the mortgage

unenforceable.




                                               3
                         TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

       15.    The complaint fails to comply with NY Real Property Actions and

Proceedings Law § 1302.

                      ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

       16.    Plaintiff and/or its predecessors in interest failed to provide proper notice

of default to the answering defendants pursuant to RPAPL §§ 1303 and 1304.

                       TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

       17.    The terms of the subject mortgage loan violate Banking Law §§ 6-l and 6-

m, and RPAPL 1304.

                     THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

       18.    Plaintiff and its purported agents and/or its purported predecessors in

interest failed to apply applicable credits and/or payments received from homeowner

defendants.

                    FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

       19.    The originating lender, its agents, brokers, assignees, purported assignees

and successors violated the Federal Truth in Lending Act 15 USC § 1601, et seq.

                       FIFTEENTH AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSE

       20.    Plaintiff and/or its purported predecessors in interest violated GBL 349 by

engaging in deceptive practices.




                                            4