On May 01, 2013 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
U.S. Bank National Association, As Successor Trustee To Bank Of America, N.A. As Successor By Merger To Lasalle Bank, N.A. As Trustee For The Certificateholders Of The Mlmi Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-Mln1,
and
Capital One Bank,
Criminal Court Of The City Of New York,
Fatima Corporan,
Gmac Mortgage, Llc,
John Doe #1 Through John Doe #10, The Last Ten Names Being Fictitious And Unknown To The Plaintiff, The Person Or Parties Intended Being The Persons Or Parties, If Any, Having Or Claiming An Interest In Or Lien Upon The Mortgaged Premises Described In The,
Jose Anibal Marrero,
New York City Environmental Control Board,
New York City Parking Violations Bureau,
New York City Transit Adjudication Bureau,
New York State Department Of Taxation And Finance,
Panther Siding & Windows, Inc.,
Queens Supreme Court,
Target National Bank,
for Foreclosure (residential mortgage)
in the District Court of Queens County.
Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2015 04:11 PM INDEX NO. 701580/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 86 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2015
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
U.S. Bank, National Association, as Successor Index No. 701580/2013
Trustee to Bank of America, N.A. as Successor by
Merger to LaSalle Bank, N.A. as Trustee for the AFFIRMATION IN FURTHER
Certificateholders of the MLMI Trust, Mortgage SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
Loan asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006- MOTION FOR SUMMARY
MLN1, JUDGMENT AND RELATED
RELIEF AND OPPOSITION OF
Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
-against-
Jose Anibal Marrero, Fatima Corporan, GMAC
Mortgage, LLC, New York City Environmental
Control Board, New York City Parking Violations
Bureau, New York City Transit Adjudiciation
Bureau, Panther Siding & Windows, Inc., New
York Deparment of Taxation and Finance,
Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens
Supreme Court, Target National Bank, Capital
One Bank (USA), N.A., and "JOHN DOE #1"
through "JOHN DOE #10", the last ten names
being fictitious and unknown to the Plaintiff, the
person or parties intended being the persons or
parties, if any, having or claiming an interest in or
lien upon the mortgaged premises described in the
complaint„
Defendants.
x
VERNESSA M. POOLE, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am an attorney at Bryan Cave LLP, attorneys for plaintiff U.S. Bank, National
Association, as Successor Trustee to Bank of America, N.A. as Successor by Merger to LaSalle
Bank, N.A. as Trustee for the Certificateholders of the MLMI Trust, Mortgage Loan asset-
Backed Certificates, Series 2006-MLN1 ("Plaintiff') in this mortgage foreclosure action. I am
NYO2DOCS \ 1848516.2 \C078714 \0354675
fully familiar with the facts and circumstances stated herein and I submit this affirmation (a) in
further support of Plaintiff's motion seeking an order (i) pursuant to CPLR § 3212, granting
summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on its foreclosure claim; (ii) pursuant to CPLR
§§ 3211(b) and 3212, dismissing each affirmative defense and counterclaim raised by Jose
Anibal Marrero and Fatima Corporan (together "Defendants") because not one presents triable
issues of fact and all lack merit; (iii) pursuant to RPAPL §§ 1321 and 1325, appointing a Referee
to compute the amount due Plaintiff and to determine whether the subject property should be
sold in a single parcel; (iv) pursuant to CPLR § 3215, granting judgment on the Defaulting
Defendants; (v) amending the caption to delete defendants "JOHN DOE #1" through "JOHN
DOE #10"; (vi) for such other, further and different relief as this Court may deem just and proper
and (b) in opposition to Defendants' cross-motion seeking dismissal of this action pursuant to
CPLR § 3211(a)(7), summary judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3212 or, alternatively, leave to file
an amended pleanding pursuant to CPLR § 3025 (the "Cross-Motion").
2. As further explained in the accompanying Reply Memorandum of Law, Defendants'
opposition to Plaintiff's Motion does not raise any material disputed facts or legal arguments that
would justify denying the Motion:
a. Defendants concede their default in payment since April 1, 2012.
b. Defendants concede that all of the affirmative defenses and counterclaims
must be dismissed.
c. Defendants' argument that Plaintiff did not have standing is not at issue in
this case because Defendants waived their ability to contest standing.
Further, Defendants are wrong on the facts and the law, as Plaintiff was
the holder of the Note, physically possessed the Note at commencement of
the action and thus has standing.
d. Defendants do not have standing to contest the Assignment of Mortgage.
e. Plaintiffs affidavits are admissible.
2
NYO2D005 \ 1848516.2 \C078714 \ 0354675
f. Defendants' Proposed Amended Answer lacks merit, primarly consist of
one-line allegations and is duplicative of Answer and leave to amend
should be denied.
WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Cross-Motion
should be denied and Plaintiff's Motion should be granted in all respects, with costs and
disbursements granted to Plaintiff.
VERNESSA M. POOLE
Dated: New York, New York
March 5, 2015
3
NYO2DOCS \ 1848516.2 \C078714 \ 0354675
Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2015 04:11 PM INDEX NO. 701580/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 86 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS U.S. Bank, National Association, as Successor Index No. 701580/2013 Trustee to Bank of America, N.A. as Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank, N.A. as Trustee for the AFFIRMATION IN FURTHER Certificateholders of the MLMI Trust, Mortgage SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S Loan asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006- MOTION FOR SUMMARY MLN1, JUDGMENT AND RELATED RELIEF AND OPPOSITION OF Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -against- Jose Anibal Marrero, Fatima Corporan, GMAC Mortgage, LLC, New York City Environmental Control Board, New York City Parking Violations Bureau, New York City Transit Adjudiciation Bureau, Panther Siding & Windows, Inc., New York Deparment of Taxation and Finance, Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens Supreme Court, Target National Bank, Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., and "JOHN DOE #1" through "JOHN DOE #10", the last ten names being fictitious and unknown to the Plaintiff, the person or parties intended being the persons or parties, if any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the mortgaged premises described in the complaint„ Defendants. x VERNESSA M. POOLE, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am an attorney at Bryan Cave LLP, attorneys for plaintiff U.S. Bank, National Association, as Successor Trustee to Bank of America, N.A. as Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank, N.A. as Trustee for the Certificateholders of the MLMI Trust, Mortgage Loan asset- Backed Certificates, Series 2006-MLN1 ("Plaintiff') in this mortgage foreclosure action. I am NYO2DOCS \ 1848516.2 \C078714 \0354675 fully familiar with the facts and circumstances stated herein and I submit this affirmation (a) in further support of Plaintiff's motion seeking an order (i) pursuant to CPLR § 3212, granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on its foreclosure claim; (ii) pursuant to CPLR §§ 3211(b) and 3212, dismissing each affirmative defense and counterclaim raised by Jose Anibal Marrero and Fatima Corporan (together "Defendants") because not one presents triable issues of fact and all lack merit; (iii) pursuant to RPAPL §§ 1321 and 1325, appointing a Referee to compute the amount due Plaintiff and to determine whether the subject property should be sold in a single parcel; (iv) pursuant to CPLR § 3215, granting judgment on the Defaulting Defendants; (v) amending the caption to delete defendants "JOHN DOE #1" through "JOHN DOE #10"; (vi) for such other, further and different relief as this Court may deem just and proper and (b) in opposition to Defendants' cross-motion seeking dismissal of this action pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(7), summary judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3212 or, alternatively, leave to file an amended pleanding pursuant to CPLR § 3025 (the "Cross-Motion"). 2. As further explained in the accompanying Reply Memorandum of Law, Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's Motion does not raise any material disputed facts or legal arguments that would justify denying the Motion: a. Defendants concede their default in payment since April 1, 2012. b. Defendants concede that all of the affirmative defenses and counterclaims must be dismissed. c. Defendants' argument that Plaintiff did not have standing is not at issue in this case because Defendants waived their ability to contest standing. Further, Defendants are wrong on the facts and the law, as Plaintiff was the holder of the Note, physically possessed the Note at commencement of the action and thus has standing. d. Defendants do not have standing to contest the Assignment of Mortgage. e. Plaintiffs affidavits are admissible. 2 NYO2D005 \ 1848516.2 \C078714 \ 0354675 f. Defendants' Proposed Amended Answer lacks merit, primarly consist of one-line allegations and is duplicative of Answer and leave to amend should be denied. WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Cross-Motion should be denied and Plaintiff's Motion should be granted in all respects, with costs and disbursements granted to Plaintiff. VERNESSA M. POOLE Dated: New York, New York March 5, 2015 3 NYO2DOCS \ 1848516.2 \C078714 \ 0354675