We are pleased to share a recent decision of a case handled by Friedman Vartolo, LLP. In HSBC BANK,USA, NA, v. Mihai Margineanu, etal Index 609027/2015, Suffolk County decided June 12, 2019. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was granted and defendant’s cross motion to renew denied.
The defendants sought leave to renew their prior cross motion for summary judgment and order seeking dismissal of the complaint. However, there were no new facts or demonstration of change in the law. Defendant, alleged a change in law, based on the recent Dieudonne case (Bank of New York Mellon v. Dieudonne (171 AD3rd 34, 96 NYS3d 354 (2nd Dept 2019). Second, they allege the de-acceleration letter was improperly mailed to prior counsel instead of defendant.
The Court found, that defendant correctly argued Dieudonne rejected the interpretation of the mortgage contract language as one that does not trigger an acceleration of the entire debt, until Judgment. However, Dieudonne, only addresses one argument from the Court’s October 9, 2018 decision. Thus, the Court’s position that the action was not timely was unchanged based on the remaining three reasons in the decision. As to the de-acceleration, the Court found that the defendant’s failed to provide reasonable justification for failure to present such facts in the original motion.
The plaintiff met the prima facie burden in the motion for summary judgment, however, the defendants’ submission did not oppose plaintiff’s application.
A great job by Annette Gershovich, Esq. and Zachary Gold, Esq. of our firm! For more information regarding this case, please contact Deborah Gallo, Director of Operations at [email protected].