We successfully opposed this bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment in the Queens County Supreme Court.
After settlement discussions fell through, plaintiff made a Motion to strike our Affirmative Defenses in order to proceed with the foreclosure of my client’s million-dollar Douglaston property. The bank had the burden of establishing, through admissible evidence, its prima facie entitlement as a matter of law. The bank failed to do so.
When advancing a foreclosure action, a plaintiff must produce the mortgage, unpaid note, and evidence of default. In opposition to this bank’s Motion, before even addressing our Affirmative Defenses, we argued that Summary Judgment must be denied because the bank cannot establish a default. We explained that the bank’s evidence of default was inadmissible hearsay and undermined by its own default notices, which clearly state two different default dates (creating a question of fact). We contended that the bank’s deficient papers fell short of demonstrating entitlement as a matter of law. The Judge agreed with our opposition and denied the bank’s Motion in its entirety. Better luck next time.