Motion to Challenge the Good Faith of a Settlement (CCP 877.6) in 94-31 Richmond Properties Corp. SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS, Shahbaz Mokaria v. Pamela G Kruse A/K/A PAMELA KRUSE| Trellis.Law

On July 31, 2020 a Exhibit,Appendix was filed involving a dispute between 94-31 Richmond Properties Corp. Successors And Or Assigns, 94-31 Richmond Properties Corp. Successors And Or Assigns, Shahbaz Mokaria, and Pamela G Kruse A K A Pamela Kruse, Pamela G Kruse A K A Pamela Kruse, for Real Property - Other (RPAPL Art.15 Compel Deter) in the District Court of Nassau County.

Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/15/2020 03:59 PM INDEX NO. 607831/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021

EXHIBIT E
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/15/2020 03:59 PM INDEX NO. 607831/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NASSAU
.---..-----------------·---X
U.S. BANK, CUSTODIAN FOR TOWER DBW, Index No.: 4185/2014

Plaintiff,
AFFIRMATION IN
-against- OPPOSITION

PAMELA G. KRUSE a/k/a PAMELA KRUSE,
LENORE C. BROWNE, SOUTH NASSAU
COMMUNITIES HOSPITAL, SOUTH SHORE
HEALTHCARE, MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, ARROW
FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC a/p/o CHASE
MANHATTAN BANK, KMT GROUP, LLC, ASSET
ACCEPTANCE LLC, DISCOVER BANK,

Defendants.
.--.-----..__----...... --..----..--··--X

Keith S. Garret, Esq., an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the Courts of the State of

New York, affirms the following under the penalties of peijury:

l. 1 am the attorney for 94-31 Richmond Properties Corp. ("Richmond"). I make

thisAffinnation based upon the books and records of Richmed, my conversations with the

owner of Richmond, the real property and judicial records of Nassau County, the exhibits

iiitexedhereto and the exhibits aimexed to the KRUSE Order to Show Cause and Plaintiff's

Opposition.

2. This Affirmation is submitted in opposition to the application of the defaulted

defendant, PAMELA G, KRUSE, (hereinafter, "KRUSE"), brought by Order to Show Cause, for

an Order, inter alia: (i)setting aside and vacating the judgment of foreclosure and deed delivered

thereon for lack of jurisdiction (see generally, KRUSE OSC).

3. Richmond is the owner of the real property commonly known as 2250 Laileãster
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/15/2020 03:59 PM INDEX NO. 607831/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021

Avenue, Daldwin, New York, Section 54, Block 466, Lot 9 on thetax of Nassau
map County

(the "Premises") pursuant to referee'sdeed dated Noyciiiber 2016 (the "Referee's Deed"),
18,

I. Facts and Procedural History

4. Fkhmcmd purchased the Premises on September 2016 as the highest bidder at
27,

a tax lien foreclosure sale and for valuable cesideration in the amount of $225,000.00 (see,

Plaintiff's Opposition, Exhibits N - P),

5, Richmond purchased the Premises for a fairrepresentetlen of itsmarket value and

paid valuable consideration for the same, Richmond isa bona fidepurchãser of the Premises and

relied upon the judicial and real property records of Nassau County when it parchasëd the

Premises at the taxlien foreclosure sale Plaintiff's Exhibits N - P).
(see, Opposition,

6. The Prernises consists of a residential house located in the County of Nassau,

State ofNew York.

7, Richmond has expelided, and continues to expend on the Premises,
money

including but not limited to real property taxes, iiisürance premiums and other carrying charges.

8. Itappears from the allegations in the KRUSE Order to Show Cause thatKRUSE

is attempting to open her default in the above-captioned tax lienforeclosure action and, inter

alia,regain ownership of the Premises (see generally, KRUSE OSC),

9, Richmond purchased the premises at a foreclosuresale held pürsüññt to Judgment

of Foreclosure and Sale dated Decéniber 16, 2015 and entered on Deceiiiber 22, 2015 (see,

Plaintiff's Opposition, Exhibit J).

10, The sale to Richmond was memorialized by deed from Referee Jane Shrenkel,

2
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/15/2020 03:59 PM INDEX NO. 607831/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021

Esq.,dated November 18, 2016 (see, Plaintiff'sOpposition, Exhibit 0).

11. Subsequent to Richmond's purchase of the Premises, on-or-about November 30,

2016, Richmond served a ten-day notice upon KRUSE with the intentionof removing alltenants

from the Premises (see, KRUSE OSC, Exhibits E and F).

12. Subsequent to Richm0ild's purchase of the Premises and attempted eviction of the

tenants residing in the same, KRUSE filed her Order to Show Cause seeldog to,inter alia, set

aside itsdefault in the taxlien foreclosure action and regain titleto thePremises,

13. The KRUSE Order to Show Cause was filed almost three (3) years after the

conññeñcemeiit of the tax lien foreclosure action, and over one (1)year from the entry date of

the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale (see, Plaintiff'sOpposition, Exhibit J).

14. According to the court fileassociated with this action, KRUSE was served with

the pledings in this action on May 10, 2014, and KRUSE failed to answer and/or appear and

therefore defaulted in thisaction (see, Plaintiff'sOpposition, Exhibits E and Q).

15. According to the court file and the facts as set forth in Plaintiff's counsel's

oppushig papers, itis undisputed that KRUSE failed to answer and/or appear and therefore

defaulted in thetax lien foreclosure action.

16. As willbe shown, and as argued in Plaintiff'scounsel's opposing papers, KI?USE

offers no reasoññble excuse for her default, and offers no meritorious defeñse. Moreover, the

scrivener's error in the Plaintiff'sprocess server's affidavit of service should not be used to

overturn and/or vacate the judgment of forcclosure and saleand Referee's Deed.

17. Richmcad is a bona fide purchaser of the Premises, and upon inforniation and

3
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/15/2020 03:59 PM INDEX NO. 607831/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021

belief, KRUSE had knowledge and notice of the tax lien foreclosure action after the
shortly

commencement of the same (see generally,Plaintiff'sOpposition).

18. As a result,the Court should deny the KRUSE Order to Show Cause, Richmend's

titleshould not be disturbed, and Richmond's owneishig of the Premises should be confirmed.

19. In the alternative, should Richmond be divested of its titleto the Premises,

Richmond is entitled to a be compêñseted by KRUSE and/or the Plaintiffin an amount to be

determined by this Court, but in any event in an amount no less than the purchase price paid by

Richmond to acquire the Premises, and any/all carrying charges and/or expenses incurred by

Richniond, including but not limited to the costs and fees associated with this action and

opposing the KRUSE Order to Show Cause,

IL Argument

A. Service Upon KRUSE was Proper and KRUSE has Defaulted in Answering or

Appearing in the Tax Lien Foreclosure Action

20. KRUSE alleges, in conclusory terms, that she never received notice of the tax lien

foreclosure action (see generally, KRUSE Afd.).

21. However, the affidavit of service duly filed in connection with this action

provides proof that KRUSE was in fact served on May 10, 2014 (see, Plaintiff'sOpposition,

Exhibits E and Q). That said affidavit of service contains what is alleged to be a scrivener's

errorshould not result in the vacatur of the judgment of foreclosure and saleand Referee's Deed

(see,Plaintiff's Opposition, CESTARE Afd.).

22, The process server's sworn affidavit of service, it is respectfully submitted,

complies with the requirements of the BCL and CPLR and constitutes prima facie evidence of

4
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/15/2020 03:59 PM INDEX NO. 607831/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021

proper service (see,Bankers Trust Co, of Cal., N,A. v. 303 A,D,2d 756 N.Y,S.2d
Tsoukas, 343,

[2"d
93 Dept., 2003]; see also,Kaywood v Cigpak, 258 A.D.2d 623, 685 N.Y.S.2d 770
Inc.,

[1999]; Manhattan Sav. Bank v Kohen, 231 A.D.2d 499, 647 N.Y,S.2d 256 [1996]).

23. The self-serving affidavit of KRUSE is inadequatc to rebut the presumption of

proper service evidenced by the affidavitof service filed in thisaction (see, Pierrepoint, LLC, v,

Mauro,_304 A.D.2d 631, 757 N.Y.S.2d 468 [2nd Dept. 2003]; see also,Manhattan Savings Bank

v. Kohen, 231 A.D.2d 499, 500, 647 N.Y.S.2d 256 [2nd Dept. 1996]).

24. Although the process server's affidavit crroneously states that a male named

Lenore Browne was served on May 10, 2014 as a person of suitable age and discretion, the

process server has provided an explanation of said error (see generally,Plaintiff's Oppositica).

25, Here, KRUSE's bare denial of service is insufficientto rebut the presumption of

service created by the process server's affidavit,and is insufficient'toñêcessitate a traverse

hearing on the issue (14.; see also, Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys.,Inc. v Schotter, 50 AD3d

[2"d
983, 857 N.Y.S.2d 592 Dept., 2008]; 425 E. 26th St. Owners Corp. v Beaton, 50 AD3d 845,

[2"d
858 N.Y.S.2d 188 Dept., 2008]).

26. As a resultof the foregoing, itis respectfully submitted thatthe KRUSE Order to

Show Cause be denied in itsentirety.

Excuse" Defense"
B. Any Argumcat of "Reasonable and "Meritorious
Pursuant to CPLR § 5015(a)(1) Should be Diregarded by the Court

27, CPLR § 5015 states, in pertinent part, "Relief from judgment or order: (a)On

Motion, The court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from itupon such

terms as inay be just,on motion of any intcrcsted person with such notice as the court may direct,

5
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/15/2020 03:59 PM INDEX NO. 607831/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021

upon the ground of: (1)excusable default,ifsuch motion ismade within one year after service of

a copy of the judgment or order with written notice of its upon the party, or, ifthe
entry moving

entry..."
moving party has entered the judgment or order, within one year aftersuch (see, CPLR

§ 5015[a][1]).

28. KRUSE offers neither a reasonable excuse for its default, nor a meritorious

defense forher default in the tax lien foreclosure action (see generally, KRUSE OSC).

excuse"
29. A challenge to service is not a "reasonable pursüñnt to CPLR §

5015(a)(1), but rather a threshold issue to be addressed pursuant to CPLR § 5015(a)(4) (see,

[2"d
Roberts v. Anka, 45 A.D.3d 752, 846 N.Y.S.2d 280 Dept., 2007]).

30. When a defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment raises a jurisdictional

objection pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4), the court is required to resolve the jurisdictional

question before determining whether itis appropriate to grant a discretionary vacatur of the

[2"d
default under CPLR 5015(a)(1) (see,Marable v Williams, 278 AD2d 459, 718 NYS2d 400

[2."d
Dept., 2000] ; Taylor v Jones, 172 AD2d 745, 569 NTS2d 131 Dept., 1991]),

31. As shown above, and as expounded upon in Plaintiff'sopposition to the KRUSE

Order to Show Cause, service, itis respectfully submitted, was proper, and KRUSE defaulted in

appearing in thetax lien foreclosure action.

32. Further, any allegations that an erroneous affidavitof service somehow deprived

KRUSE of knowledge and/or notice of the tax lien foreclosure action are unavailing and not a

meritorious defense to the tax lien foreclosure action (see generally,Plaintiff'sOpposition).

6
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/15/2020 03:59 PM INDEX NO. 607831/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021

33, Finally, assuming arguendo that KRUSE alleged that she now had the funds

necessary to bring her past due taxes current (which she does not),she and her counsel point to

no case law for the proposition thatthe tax lien foreclosure sale to a bona fide purchaser for

value should be overturned simply because the defaulted owner now claims to have the
property

funds necessary to redeem the already-foreclosed property.

34. As a resultof the foregoing, itis submitted that the KRUSE Order to
respectfully

Show Cause be denied in itsentirety.

C, Richmond is a Bona Fide Em chi.scr, having Paid Value for the Premises, and
KRUSE's Remedy isto Motion the Court for Surplus Funds

35. Richmond completed its purchase of the Premises prior to the filing of the

KRUSE Order to Show Cause and at the conclusion of the foreclosure procccding whereby the

Premises was sold due to KRUSE's failure to pay her real property taxes, and without knowledge

or notico of the claims set forthin the KRUSE Order to Show Cause.

36. Richmond is a bonaflde purchaser of the Promiscs and as such, is entitledto the

protections of the recording act from challenges to itstitle(see,RPL § 291). Even ifKRUSF, is

successful in itschalicñge to the foreclosure action itwould not recover the Premises - a
itself,

26"'
bona flde purchüwr for value is entitledto retain ownership (see,425 East Street Owners

[2"d
Corp. v, Beaton, 128 A.D.3d 766, 10 N.Y.S.3d 127 Dept., 2015]; see also, Aubrey Equities

[1"'
v. Goldberg, 247 A.D.2d 253, 668 N.Y.S.2d 598 Dept., 1998]).

37. Indeed, even in a case where reversal or vacatur may be warranted (again, not this

where a court had no jurisdiction - for want of proper service - see U.S. Bank Nat'l
case) (see,

7
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/15/2020 03:59 PM INDEX NO. 607831/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021

Asan. v. 24 [3"
Van Vliet, A.D.3d 906, 805 N.Y.S.2d 459 Dept., the court nevertheless
2005])

held:

"We note that should Supremo Court determined thatjurisdiction
was not obtained over defendant, inasnuïeb as itisundisputed
that (there was) a good-faith purchaser for value, thecourt may
direct that restitution"
defendant isrelegated to monetary (citing
CPLR 5015[d]; 5523; see generally DaSilva v. Musso, 76
N.Y.2d 436, 440-441, 560 N.Y.S.2d 109, 559N.E.2d 1268
(1990); Aubrey Equities, Inc. v. Goldberg, 247A.D.2d 253,
668 N.Y.S.2d 598 (1stDept. 1998), ly.denied 92 N.Y.2d 802,
677 N.Y.S.2d 72, 699 N.E.2d 432 (1998).

38, Moreover, in 425 East 26th Street Owners Corp. v.Beaton, supra., the court held:

"[E]ven if(the former property owner) were to establishher
entitlement to allthe reliefshe seeks in her appeal from the
judgment, she would have to content [her]selfwith the reiñêdies
afforded by CPLR 5523, i.e.,restorationof the value or
reversal"
purchase price already paid in the event of an appellate
(DaSilva v. Musso, 76 N.Y.2d 436, 560 N.Y,S.2d 109,
559N.E.2d 1268; see Matter of Huntington Hebrew
Congregation of Huntington v. Tenenbaum, 62 A.D,3d 704,
704-705, 877N.Y.S.2d 899; 405 44th St. 130 Realty Co, v.
168 FortuneRealty, Inc. , 14 A.D.3d 481, 788 N.Y.S.2d 404; see
also Vigov.501 Second St. Holding Corp., 121 A.D.3d 778,
779, 994 N.Y.S.2d 354).

39. As a resultof the foregoing, itis respectfully submitted that the KRUSE Order to

Show Cause be denied in itsentirety. However, even in the event that KRUSE Order to Show

Cause isnot denied, itis respectfully submitted that pursuant to well-settledcase law, the titleof

Richmond in and to the Premises must not be disturbed.
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/15/2020 03:59 PM INDEX NO. 607831/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021

D. The Judgment of Foreclosurc and Sale is Finaland
KRUSE's Title and Right of Redemption was Enisgüished
at the Tax Lien Foreclosure Sale

40. A judgment of foreclosure and sale is finaland even when the defendant
binding

has defaulted in theaction - as in the case at bar- of
which empha ca thefinality the judgment

of foreclosure and sale. [See, Rizzo v, Ippolito, 137 A.D.2d 511, 524 N.Y.S.2d 255; see also,

Bank of New York v. Route 312 Development Corporation, 185 A.D.2d 582, 586 N.Y.S.2d 373

(3d Dept. 1992)].

41. Here, as started,the Judgment of Fõrecl0süce and Sale was signed on December

16, 2015 and entered on December 22, 201S (see, Plaintiff's Opposition, Exhibit J). The

l'ramists was subsequently sold to Richmond by the Referee at the foreclósüw sale (see,

Plaintiff's Opposition, Exhibit 0).

42. Any challenge to Richmond's title,and to the underlying tax lien foreclosure

action, isunavailing.

43. As stated above, assuming, arguendo, that the tax lien foreclosure action is

overturned or KRUSE is provided with an opportunity to appear and answer in the action,

26"'
Richmond is protected due to itsstatus as a bona flde purchaser for value (see, 425 East

[2"d
Street Owners Corp. v. Beaton, 128 A.D.3d 766, 10 N,Y,S.3d 127 Dept,, 2015]; see also,

[1"'
Aubrey Equities v.Goldberg, 247 A.D.2d 253, 668 N.Y.S.2d 598 Dept,, 1998]).

44. The moment a hammer fallsat a foreclosure auction sale,the bidder becomes the

equitable owner of the pisperty (see, Hepworth v. Manetta Holding Corp., 262 A.D. 877, 28

[2"d
N.Y.S.2d 526 Dept., 1941]); Norwest Mortgage, Inc. v. Brown, 35 A.D.3d 682, 830

9
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/15/2020 03:59 PM INDEX NO. 607831/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021

[2'"'
N.Y.S.2d 158 Dept., 2006]), citing United Capital Corp, v. 183 Lorraine St.Assoc., 251

A.D,2d 400, 675 N.Y,S.2d 543; NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v. Em-Ess Petroleum Corp., 19Misc.3d

855 [1"I
240, N.Y,S,2d 854 [Sup. Ct. 2008], qffd. 57 A.DJd 304, 869 N.Y.S.2d 71 Dept., 2008]),

45. Closely asseciated with that concept is the maxim that at the moment of the

auction sale, and without necessity for a referee's deed to be conveyed, the inorigâgor's right to

redeem is extinguished. (see, Bergman on New York Mortgage Foreclosures, §2.21, LexisNexis

Matthew Bender [rev. 2015]; see also, Nutt v. Cuming, 155 N.Y. 309, 49 N.E. 880 [1898];

[181
NYCTL 2005-A Trust,Inc. v. Rosenberger Boat Livery, Inc.,96 A.D,3d 425, 947 N.Y.S.2d 2

Dept., 2012]); Chase Manhattan Mtg, Coiporation v. Harper, 54 A.D.3d 987, 865 N.Y.S.2d 127

[2"d
Dept., 2008]); Option One Mtge. Corp. v. Corman, 39A.D,3d 724, 835 N.Y.S.2d 608

[2"d
Dept., 2007]).

46. Finally, public policy requires that a court's power to setaside a sale be ex6rcised

with caution (see generally, Polish National Alliance of Brooklyn v. White Eagle Hall Co., 98

[2"d
AD2d 400, 470 N.Y.S.2d 642 Dept., 1983]); Glenville and 110 Corp. v. Tortora, 137

[2nd
A.D.2d 654, 524 N.Y.S,2d 747 Dept., 1988]),

47. Based upon the foregoing, itis respectfully submitted that Richnicad's titleto the

Promises should not be disturbed, that the tax lien foreclosure saleremain final,and theKRUSE

Order to Show Cause be denied in itsentirety.
/
48. In the alternative, should the judgment of foreclosure and salebe vacated and the

Referee's Deed deemed vacated and/or otherwise rescinded, Richmond is entitled to a be

compêñsted by KRUSE and/or the Plaintiffin an amount to be determined by this Court, but in

10
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/15/2020 03:59 PM INDEX NO. 607831/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021

any event in an amount no less than the putohâse price paid Richmond to acquire the
by

Premises, and any/all carrying charges and/or expenses incurred Richmond, but not
by including

limited to the costand fees associated with this action and the KRUSE Order to Show Cause.

III. Conclusion

49. KRUSE has failedto prove that she was not served with process in the current

action.

50. The arguments pertaining to CPLR §§ 5015(a)(1), (4) should be disicsdided

because KRUSE has provided neither a reascuable excuse for her default,or meritorious defense

to the tax lienforeclosure action,

51. The Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale, and subsequent sale of the Premises to

Richmond, should be declared final.

52. Pursuant to the facts and case law set forth herein, and based upon Richmond's

status as abonafide purchaser of the Premises for value, Richmond's title to the Premises must

not be disturbed.

WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that this Court

deny and dismiss the KRUSE Order to Show Cause in its entire.ty,uphold the sale of the

Premises to Richmond, and provide such other and furtherreliefa this Court deems just, proper

and equitable.

Dated: Babylon, New York

May 17, 2017

.. 4(dth Garfit

11
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/15/2020 03:59 PM INDEX NO. 607831/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NBW YORK
COUNTY OF NASSAU
-.---..-.,--...------------.-------------X
U.S. BANK, CUSTODIAN FOR TOWBR DBW, index No.: 4185/2014

Plaintiff,
AFFIDAVIT
-against-

PAMELA G. KRUSB a/k/aPAMBLA KRUSE,
LENORE C, BROWNE, SOUTH NASSAU
COMMUNITIES HOSPlTAL, SOUTH SHORB
HEALTHCARE, MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, ARROW
FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC a/p/oCHASE
MANHATTAN BANK, KMT GROUP, LLC, ASSET
ACCEPTANCE LLC, DISCOVBR BANK,

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

STATE OF NEW YORK }
} ss.:
COUNTY OF NASSAU }

SHAHBAZ MOKARIA, being duly sworn deposes and says:

l. 1 am the owner of 94-31 Richiiicñd Properties Corp. ("Richmond"), owner of the

realproperty commonly known as 2250 Lancaster Avenue, Baldwin, New York, Section 54,

Block 466, Lot 9 on the tax map ofNassau County (the "Premises") pursuant to referee'sdeed

dated November 18, 2016 (the "Referee's Deed").

2, I make thisAffidavit based upon the books and records of PM=- ad, made
kept,

and/ormeinteiñcd in theregular course of business,and the real property and judicialrecords of

Nassau County.

3, This Affidavit issubmitted inopposition to theappüunüon of thedefaulted

dercadâñt, PAMELA G. KRUSB, (hereinafter,"KRUSE"), brought by Order to Show Cause, for

1
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/15/2020 03:59 PM INDEX NO. 607831/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021

an Order, inter alia:(i)settingaside and the judgment of foreclosureand deed delivered
vacating

thereon for lack ofjurisdiction(see KRUSE Order to Show Cause),
generally,

4, Ria=oñd purchased the Premises on Scptcmbct 27,2016 as the highestbidder at

a tax lienforeclosure sale and for valuable consideration in theamount of $225,000,00,

5. The Premises ccñsists of a residentialhouse locatedinthe County of Nassau,

State ofNew York,

6. KRUSE isatteinpung, Order to Show toopen herdefault in theabove-
by Cause,

captioned tax lienforcelosure action and, inter alia,regain of thePremises,
ownership

7. P!±mond purchased the premises at a fóreelesüresale heldpursuant to Judgment

of Forccicsarc and Sale dated December 16, 201S and entered on Decesher 22, 2015,

8. The saleto Richmond was memorialized by deed from Referee Jane Shrenkel,

Esq., dated November 18,2016,

9. On or about April 3, 2017, KRUSE filedher Order to Show Cause seeking to,

inter alia,set aside her defaultin thetax lien foreciesace action and regain titleto thePremises.

10. The KRUSE Order to Show Cause was filedalmost three(3) years afterthe

ccrûmcñeesêñt of the taxlien foreolosure action, and over one (1) yearfrom the entrydate of

the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale.

11. According to thedocuments contained in thecourt fileuseciatéd with this

action, KRUSE was served with the pleadings in thisaction on May 10, 2014·,and KRUSE failed

to answer and/or appear and therefore defaulted in thisaction.

12. Richmond porchased the Promises for,upon infornwion and belief, a fair

repicsentation of itsmarket value.

2
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/15/2020 03:59 PM INDEX NO. 607831/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021

13, Richmond isa bona fide purchaser of the Premiscs and reliedupon the judicial

and real property records of Nassau when itpurchased the Picaiises.
County

14. Subsequent to Richmoñd's purchase of the on-or-about November
Premises, 30,

2016, Richmond selved a ten-day notice upon KRUSE with the intentionof alltenants
removing

from the Premises (see,Exhibit A).

15. KRUSE, afterreceiving the notice, informed me thatshe was aware of the
ten-day

foreclosure during the pendency of the same, and was aware that she would be
eveiitünity

required to vacato the Premises.

16. As a result.itisresi>ectfaily submitted that Richmond's owñ6rship and title

should not be disturbed.

17. For a coini3letefactual background and the legalEgüiiiciitsin support of this

Oppositicii, the Court isrespectfully referred to theaccompanying affirmationof counsel.

WHEREFORE, based upon the foregaing, itis respectfullysubmitted thatthis Court

deny and dismiss the KRUSE Order to Show Cause in its uphold
entirety, the saleof the

Promises to Pichmond, and provide such other and further relief as thisCourt deems just,proper

and equitable.

94-31 Richmond Properties Corp.

Sý S1YAHBAZ MOKARIA
8TATE OF NE YORK
) ss.:
COUNTY OF '
O.S$CLL( )

/7A /L(f6t-' before appeared
On the day of , 2017, me, the üiidersigacd,
rareena"y
$bdlag.% /4 D personallycnown to me or proved evidence
to me on the basia of antisfactoly to be the
individualwhose instramcut
to the withht
name is subscribed and âclGiGwicdpd the
to me that he/she executed
same in his/her and that by his/her
oapacity, on the int':9nw%
signature or the person upon behalf
the individual, of
which the individual
acted, executed
the trement, made such appearance before the
and that such indMduo!
üñdersigne in the County f_NOSSOM York.
in the State of New

ÓNotary Public Notary Publle - State of New York
NO. 010H6332467
0ualified in Nassau County
My commfsalon ExpiresNov 2, 2019
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 12/15/2020 03:59 PM INDEX NO. 607831/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2021

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NASSAU
-------===---------------X
U.S. BANK, CUSTODIAN FOR TOWER DBW, Index No.: 4185/2014

Plaintiff,
-against-

PAMELA G. KRUSE a/k/a PAMELA KRUSE, LENORE C.
BROWNE, SOUTH NASSAU COMMUNITIES AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
HOSPITAL, SOUTH SHORE HEALTHCARE, MIDLAND
FUNDING LLC, ARROW FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC
a/p/o CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, KMT OROUP, LLC,
ASSET ACCEPTANCE LLC, DISCOVER BANK,

Defendants.
____.. .¬---------------- X
STATE OF NEW YORK }
}ss.:
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK }

ASHLEY OSMAN, being duly sworn, doi oses and says:1 am not a party to the action,
am over 18 years of age and reside in Melville, New York. On May 17, 2017, I served a true

copy of the annexed AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION by mailing the same in a sealed
envelope, with postage prepared thereon, in a post-office or officialdepository of the U.S; Postal
Service within the State of New York, addressed to the lastknown address of the addressee as
indicated below:

Josef F. Abt, Esq. William D. Friedman, Esq.
Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP Law Office of William D. Friediñãü
Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant Pamela G. Kruse
565
156 West Street 62 Nichols Court, Ste. 204
New York, NY 10019 Hempstead, NY 11550

(212) 237-1000 (516) 528-S462

ASHLEY OSMAN
Sworn tobefore me this
17*
day of May, 2017

. .

letary Public

CHRISTOPHER DAVID
Notary Publfe, State of New York
No. 02DA6331717

Case Info

Judge

Nassau Fp3 Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

December 15, 2020

Case Filing Date

July 31, 2020

County

Parties

94-31 RICHMOND PROPERTIES CORP. SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS Plaintiff
94-31 RICHMOND PROPERTIES CORP. SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS Plaintiff
DAVID, CHRISTOPHER JON Attorney for the Plaintiff
GARRET, KEITH S. Attorney for the Plaintiff
Pamela G Kruse A/K/A PAMELA KRUSE Defendant
Pamela G Kruse A/K/A PAMELA KRUSE Defendant
Shahbaz Mokaria Plaintiff
CHRISTOPHER DRAKE Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JANE SHRENKEL Attorney
ADAM BRISKIN Attorneys for Plaintiffs
IRENE ZOUPANIOTIS Attorneys for Defendants
JOSEF ABT Attorneys for Plaintiffs
WILLIAM FRIEDMAN Attorneys for Defendants

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

Exhibit,Appendix: 94-31 Richmond Properties Corp. SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS, Shahbaz Mokaria v. Pamela G Kruse A/K/A PAMELA KRUSE

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties