Preview
FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 04:13 PM INDEX NO. 135432/2023NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK INDEX NO. COUNTY OF RICHMOND PLANET HOME LEND1NG, LLC, Plaintiff designates RICHMOND as the place Plaintiff, of trial situs of the real property vs. SUMMONS ELIZABETH LAMADIEU; BOARD OF MANAGERS OF TIIE WOODMONT WEST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; NEW YORK CITY PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU, NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD; NE W YORK CITY TRANSIT ADJUDICATION BUREAU, #1" #12," "JOHN DOE through "JOHN DOE the Subject Property: last twelve names being-fictitious and unknown to 20 CASWELL LANE plaintiff, the persons or parties intended being the STATEN ISLAND, NY 10314 tenants, occupants, persons or corporations, if any, having or claiming an intemst in or lien upon the premises, described in the complaint, Defendants. To the above named Defendants YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance on the Plaintiffs Attorney within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete ifthis summons is not personally delivered to you withfu the State of New York) in the event the United States of America is made a party defendant, the time to answer for the said United States of America shall not expire until (60) days after service of the Summons; and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. ElllilllllMIAHIlllilllMMII EllilllllMHilllllMillllllHillN 1111111A111111111E1111A .23-150990 - NiA Drafter:Nicole Allen 1 of 31FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 04:13 PM INDEX NO. 135432/2023NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023 NOTICE YOU ARE IN DANGER OF LOSING YOUR HOME If you do not respond to this summons and complaint by serving a copy of the answer on the attorney for the mortgage company who filed this foreclosure proceeding against you and filing the answer with the court, a defanIt judgment may be entered and you can lose your home. Speak to an attorney or go to the court wherz your case is pending for further information on how to answer the summons and protect your property. Sending a payrnent to the mortgage company will not stop the foreclosure action. YOU MUST RESPOND BY SERVING A COPY OF THE ANSWER ON THE ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF (MORTGAGE COMPANY) AND FILING THE ANSWER WITH THE COURT. Please take further notice that any right you may have pmsuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to dispute the validity or amount of the debt does not change the time within which you must answer this summons and complaint. You must follow the instructions contained in the summons even if you dispute the validity or amount of the debt. Dated: September 25,.2023 Robertson, Anse tz, Schne , Crane & P . rs, PLLC . Attomey fo laintiff BY: [ Z. BORI. . I , ESQ. [X ANTHONY CELLUCCI, ESQ. [ ] SCOTT R. WEISS, ESQ. [ ] KELLY R. FABER, ESQ. [ ] ANNETTE SHACHTER, ESQ. 900 Merchants Concourse, Suite 310 Westbury, NY 11590 516-280-7675 23-150990- NiA Drafter:Nicole ANen 2 of 31FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 04:13 PM INDEX NO. 135432/2023NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023 Help for Homeowners in Foreclosure New York State Law requires that we send you this notice about the foreclosure process. Please read it carefully. Summons and Complaint You are in danger of losing your home. If you fail to respond to the summons and complaint in this foreclosure action, you may lose your home. Please read the summons and complaint carefully. You should immediately contact an attorney or your local legal aid office to obtain advice on how to protect yourself. Sources of Information and Assistance The State encourages you to become informed about your options in foreclosure. In addition to seeking assistance from an attorney or legal aid office, there are government agencies and non-profit organizations that you may contact for information about possible options, including trying to work with your lender during this process. To locate an entity near you, you may call the toll-free helpline maintained by the New York State Department of Financial Services at (enter number) or visit the Department's website at (enter web address). Rights and Obligations YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO LEAVE YOUR HOME AT THIS TIME. You have the right to stay in your home during the foreclosure process. You are not required to leave your home unless and until your property is sold at auction pursuant to a judgment of foreclosure and sale. Regardless of whether you choose to remain in your home, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE CARE OF YOUR PROPERTY and pay property taxes in accordance with state and local law. Page 1 of 2 3 of 31FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 04:13 PM INDEX NO. 135432/2023NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023 Foreclosure rescue scams Be careful of people who approach you with offers to “save” your home. There are individuals who watch for notices of foreclosure actions in order to unfairly profit from a homeowner's distress. You should be extremely careful about any such promises and any suggestions that you pay them a fee or sign over your deed. State law requires anyone offering such services for profit to enter into a contract which fully describes the services they will perform and fees they will charge, and which prohibits them from taking any money from you until they have completed all such promised services. Page 2 of 2 4 of 31FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 04:13 PM INDEX NO. 135432/2023NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF RICHMOND INDEX NO. PLANET HOME LEND1NG, LLC, COMPLAINT Plaintiff, vs. Subject Property: 20 CASWELL LANE STATEN ISLAND, NY 10314 ELIZABETH LAMADIEU; BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE WOODMONT WEST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; NEW YORK CITY PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU; NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD; NEW YORK CTIŽ TRANSITADJUDICATION BUREAU, #1" #12," "JOHN DOE through "JOHN DOE the last twelve names being fictitious and unknown to plaintiff, the persons or parties intended being the tenants, occupants, persons or corporations, if any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the premises, described in the complaint, Defendants. The complaint of the above-named plaintiff, by Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC, its attorneys, alleges upon information and belief as follows: 1. Plaintiff is organized under the laws of the United States of America or its state of formation. 2. On January 12, 2023, ELIZABETH LAMADIEU duly executed and delivered a note whereby ELIZABETH LAMADIEU promised to pay the sum of $464,997EO plus interest as set forth in said note. A copy of said note is annexed hereto. 3. Plaintiff, directly or thmugh an agent has complied with all applicable laws in an attempt to establish ownership and/or possession of the subject note and the right to foreclosure of same, Plaintiff has possession and control of the original note and mortgage, which note is secured by the mortgage identified below, and the said note is either made payable to Plaintiff or is duly indorsed. To the extent E MIIIIIllIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMII E11111111NI11111111111111111111111111 IIIllllAlllllIlllllElillI .23-150990 - NiA Drafter:Nicole Allen 5 of 31FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 04:13 PM INDEX NO. 135432/2023NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023 that the original note or interim assignments of mortgage are lost or unavailable, Plaintiff has the right to foreclose the subject note and mortgage pursuant to New York law. 4, That to secure the payment of the sum represented by said note, ELIZABETH LAMADIEU, duly executed and delivered a mortgage which was recorded as follows and the mortgage tax thereon was duly paid: Recording Date: January 23, 2023 Cotmty: RICHMOND Land Doc Number 913281 Said mortgage was assigned to Plaintiff by assignment of mortgage duly executed on a.date prior to the filing of the complaint, A copy of said mortgage is annexed hereto. S. Said mortgage secured the real property known as 20 CASWELL LANE, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK J 031.4 and by Block 1.615, Lot 95 together with all fixtures and articles of personal property annexed to, installed in, or used in connection with the mortgaged premises, all as is more fully set forth in said mortgage. A copy of the legal description is set forth on Schedule A annexed, 6, Plaintiff is the owner and holder of said note and mortgage or has been delegated the authority to institute a mortgage foreclosure action by the owner and holder of the said note and mortgage. 7. Plaintiff has complied with al l conditions precedent contained in the mortgage, if any. 8. To the extent applicable, Plaintiff has complied with RPAPL 1304 and RPAPL 1306. 9. To the extent applicable, Plaintiff has complied with all of the provisions of Banking Law section 595-a and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, Law sections 6-1 and 6- any Banking m. 10. That Defendants failed to comply with the condition s of the note and mortgage by failing to make the payment that became due- on March 01, 2023 and each subsequent payment thereafter. 1L That by reason of such defaults, Plaintiff hereby declares the balance of the principal indebtedness immediately due and payable. 23-150990 - NiA Drafter:Nicole Allen 6 of 31FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 04:13 PM INDEX NO. 135432/2023NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023 12. That there is now due and owing to the plaintiff, the principal sum of $464,997.00 with interest thereon from February 01, 2023 plus accumulated late charges together with any sums advanced by the plaintiff on behalf of defendant. 13. That plaintiff shall not be deemed to hav.e waived, altered, released or changed the election hereinbefore made by reason of the payment after the date of the commencement of this action, of any or all of the defaults mentioned herein; and such election shall continue and remain effective until the costs and disbursem*nts of this action, and any and all future defaults under the aforesaid bond or note and mortgage, and occurring prior to the discontinuance of this actioli are fully paid. 14. That to protect its scourity afforded by said note and mortgage, it inay be necessary for the plaintiff to pay taxes, assessments, water rates and insurance premiums which are, or may become liens on the mortgaged premises, and any other charges for the protection of the premises, and-plaintiff hereby demands that any amounts which may be so ex pended shall be added to the amount of the principal sum secured by said note and mortgage, together with interest from the time of any such payment, and that the same be paid to the plaintiff from the proceeds of the foreclosure salc herein. 15. That the plaintiff alleges that no other proceedings have been had for the recovery of the mortgage indebtedness or if any such action is pending, a fmal judgment was not rendered in favor of Plaintif f and such action is intended to be discontinued. 16. That plaintiff further alleges that all the defendants have, or may claim to have, some interest in, or lien upon the mortgaged premises, or some part thereof, which interest or lien, if any, is subject and subordinate to the lien of the mortgage being foreclosed. "B" 17. The description of each of the named party defendants interest is set out on Schedule annexed, "C" 18. The interest or lien of each of the named party defendants, if any, is set forth in Schedule annexed, 19. The terms. of said mortgage provide that defendants shall be liable to plaintiff for reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by plaintiff to protect or enforce plaintiffs security interest in the premises. .23-150990 - NiA Drafter:Nicole Allen 7 of 31FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 04:13 PM INDEX NO. 135432/2023NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023 20. That the sale of the mortgaged premises and title thereto are subject to the state of facts an accurate survey will show; all covenants, restrictions, easem*nts, agreements and reservations, if any,.of record, and to any and all violations thereof; any and all building and zoning regulations, restrictions. and ordinances of the municipality in which said premises are situated, and to any violations of the same, including, but not limited to, reapportionment of lot lines, and vault charges, if any; any and all orders or requirements issued by any governmental body having jurisdiction against or affecting said premises and any violation of the same; the physical condition of any buildirig or structure on the premises as of the date of closing hereunder; rights of tenants in possession, if any; prior mortgages and judgments, if any, now liens of record; right of Redemption of United States of America, if any; rights of any defendants pursuant to CPER Section 317, CPLR Section 2003 and CPLR Section 5015, if any; any and all Hazardous Materials in the premises including, but not limited to, flammable explosives, radioactive materials, hazardous wastes, asbestos or any material containing asbestos, and toxic substances; and other conditions as set forth in the terms of sale.moje particularly to be announced at. the sale, THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 23-150990 - NiA Drafter:Nicole Allen 8 of 31FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 04:13 PM INDEX NO. 135432/2023NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023 WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants as follows: A. The defendants and each of them, and all persons claiming.under them, or any of them subsequent to the commencement of this action and the filing of the Notice of Pendency thereof, may be barred and foreclosed of all right, title, claim, lien and equity of redemption in the mortgaged premises; B. Said mortgaged premises be sold subject to the state of facts an accurate survey will show; all covenants, restrictions, easem*nts, agreements and reservations, if any, of record, and to any and all violations thereof; any and all building and zoning regulations, restrictions and ordinances of the municipality in which said premises are situated, and to any violations of the same, including, but not limited to, reapportionment of lot lines, and vault charges, if any; any and all.orders or requirements issued by any govemmental body having jurisdiction against or affecting said premises and any violation of the same; the physical condition of any building or structure on the premises as of the date of closing hereunder; rights of tenants in possession, if any; prior n1ortgages and judgments, if any, now liens of record; right of Redemption of United States of America, if any; rights of any defendants pursuant to CPLR Section 317, CPLR Section 2003 and CPLR Section 5015, if any; any and all Hazardous Materials in the premises including, but not limited to, flammable explosives, radioactive materials, hazardous wastes, asbestos or any material containing asbestos, and toxic substances; and other conditions as set forth in the terms of sale more particularly to be announced at the sale. C. Said premises may be decreed to be sold in one parcel according to law mbject to the various items set forth in allegations of the complaint herein; D. The monies arising from the sale may be brought into court; E. Plaintiff may be paid the amount due on said note and mortgage as alleged herein, together with interest to the time of such payment, together with the sums expended by plaintiff prior to and during the pendency of this action, and for thirty days after any sale demanded.herein for taxes, water rates, sewer rents, assessments, insurance premiums and other necessary and essential charges or expenses in connection therewith to protect the mortgage lien, plus any sums expended for the protection or preservation of the property covered by said mortgage and note, and the amount secued thereby, with interest thereon from the time of such payment and the attorneys' costs and expenses of this action including reasonab]c fees so far as the amount of such monies properly applicable thereto will pay the same; F. The plaintiff be decreed to be the owner of any and all personal property used in connection with the said mortgaged p emises, except if discharged in bankruptcy; .23-150990 - NiA Drafter:Nicole Allen 9 of 31FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 04:13 PM INDEX NO. 135432/2023NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023 G. The obligors may be adjudged to pay any deficiency which may rernain after applying all of said monies soapplicable thereto unless the obligors were discharged in bankruptcy; H. awarding the relief requested in the additional causes of action stated in the complaint, if any; L Plaintiff shall have such ather and further relief or both, in the premises as shall bejust and equitable. Dated: September 25, 2023 Robertson, Ansch. Schn , Crane & Pa PLLC Attorney for aintiff BY; [ Z BOR , ESQ. [X] ANTHONY CELLUCC), ESQ. [ ] SCOTT R. WEISS, ESQ. [ ] KELLY R. FABER, ESQ. [ ] ANNETTE SHACHTER, ESQ. 900 Merchants Concourse, Suite 310 Westbury, NY 11590 516-280-7675 23-150990- NiA Drafter:Nicole Allen 10 of 31FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 04:13 PM INDEX NO. 135432/2023NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023 NOTE January12,2020 McMie, Mawyert [cawl f cuv] I,ststel 20 camwellin, StabanIntend,NY1934 [PrspestyAddreas] 1. BORROWER'S PROMISETOPAY Inrelumfora loanthatI havereceived,1plum1sugopepU.S. $484310L00. (lhlaamoting is estled'Prkwipaq pluslatessL10theorderof 0ÆLeader,Thalender b USMortgageCorporatlan.a NewYorkCorporatium I w3 thskesy payments MCIUrthisNsleInthelarmofcash,chemoroioneynider.. iurderstaridthal maLandermayIrahaldrIlglefigin. 'Th Lemieror arpwho takes1hisNciety trarialerandv`o d 10reCalveBy 8Fi5U)Ier ligleNomIscadedIbe'ldole Mdder. iserlthÖg A INTBRIEST untMtheMI mmcmitof PrecipsAhasbeenpold.I will pep«Werest InterestWIllbechargedon urpaidprmeip8F et a ysedyeliteof S..7110 0 TrueR1terestrate bym Secton21siheraietwillpaybombaloreandalar anydefaulddancitedin.5ecEon ress/Ired 8(B)ct lhis Note, 1 PAYMENTS {A) Tiriteand Pluceof Pepnents Iwg pay prindpelandiriterestby makinga ymervteveryrpse. two mes rnyameh paymentcri the 15% dayel eachot0@ h;glmilngon Marcht, 2021 laillrndliathasangyrcientsevery monthSlit lha epalclelloftheprecellland Iransast eridenyathatchargesdescribed belowinstI mayowounderGSaNoga.Eachmonthlypaymartiwetbe spp0edseof ite6cheduled.due dategrkiveilbe a led to kitorealand eny opier liammIn 1heorder describedin me SecortlyInstrurnentbeforePrincipel,It on F nury 1,20$3, I atInowsamounge underthisNo1u,I will paythoseamourrisInMI crt thal eats,whichla calledtWWaludityDaps. ) will/mikeinymonthlypaymentspl 201Old CourdryRoad,818140 Melvlge,NY11747 or ata (Carerñplaceirrequiredby theNolmHolder. (B) Antpuritof Moritlily Payment MyInantldypaymentWAbeh gheernouhlof L.I.S.$2,71·S.fig. 4> SQRROVdER'B NGHT10 PREPAY I hmvethedghtla makepayrnertis of Principalm anylirnebetra inoyaredue.A psymentof Pakhc%stortlyInimawn asa 'Prepaymerit"Whar1.1 makea Prepaymerit,IwgilletBieNoisFielderinwltrginat ise datingme.1rneynegdesignate III havarot madeall IhurmritNypayrnerits apayapntas s Prepayrnerrl duetindertheNota, I fribymakea LA Prepayment or partialPreps actswlthctspayinga Prepayment charge.The1%teHolderelil to reducalho gniountof Pr-meMthatLswe UEiser useuly propeyrcania IbiaNote.However,theNoteMcIdermmyspply rm Prepmyrnanup evestmmedanaunpaidintetest,en the 1Nepayment emoura,t elorespplyingmy Prepayrriartto reduceIbnPrincipalammun1 of the Idote.II I ntakea pSrlMPrepayamit.thereWdil t)e nochangesin theduedeladr la 1haa"pourilo1my monthlypaymentunless1neNoteticidar agreesin writinigto thngechanges. E. 1.OAMCHANGES Wa gaar,*bichøppinsto m goararwlwhkhsetsrmlmurnionindisges, is UnêRy interpraighsoihat theIntergata oiherloanclagermallastedorto becolladedirheoririocSori wim.lhislaar>ninised thepenrnitedIImus,then.(s)anysuch I¢ianchargeshlallbereduced1:1y themopuninecesgsgoreduce perritIlled1Irrasn- ihec gtotheparrr4tied llenit|end (b)eitystansgready cdlscleritzmmewhlebexceeded bal·elundediorae. NolaHalderrnay chooselentakethisrqiurid by ressing mePrmolpW I one uder misMte or by makinga @adtpaymeta lo me.Na rehmdreducesPdn@d.the redur.panwnbeirmated as a pastlalPrepayrrient B. aGRROWilkS PAU.UAE TOPM AEIREQUIRED |ABA18 Chargefor OverduePayments IftheNoieHaderhes.rchreceivedthefulEsmodñIrit arlyrneriHy paymentby theendof 15calamlerdaysalter thedalpIIIt due,I will paya knechMgele 1heNOldNGIder. TheminountOfthechargeutil be4.400% trienyowedum payrcerkof prindpalalidkderest.@will payIMslatediarge promptlybut orty crumon eachlatepaymemL (m amfault GI deInt payfic M amsuñLdeachmanihlypgymerilon thedateIt 6 due,l we beIndef8UIL (G) M0119e CIfAtlal 11pmb ddaiA lHeNdiaHdderinaysendmeaeaerr nette isllhg mePatif Idoflot paytheoverduearioøntbya eaftsmdela,iho NoteFloldern1eyrequiremelo payimmediately the &ll amoLirit al Priodpalwhthhannetneeripaidond HewwiAKMD RATE NOTm- Be99Feply'-.Famile MseIRedda 19asWHF©itMINg IMIslM T pers3313 g$4 Moáfed forM1145$p. ti1s) IM EAul9age$cividmpr. fog. Pagei eI2 Fr¼nedhNt 071 PHMNIGleOrlCL84 11 of 31FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 10/06/2023 04:13 PM INDEX NO. 135432/2023NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2023 LOAMA asgherearest.mallameanGentemoval-Thatdatermistbeet1sani3D41pym ellarthadeleon%Ich theno &me lorne orbellverecU try other rnaerts, (D)HeWalverBy NoteHokier EvenIt ata ItniewhenI arnEpdefault,theNoteHeddafd6senotpetidigra meIn spylitiniedlaIslywi405asdosarihad above..theNedeHolderelll stil haveilmadgtdIn do soIf I amIndefedtat alster bma> () payoutntof thte Halder's Costsand hpansan II theNotef4mdethasrequiredsno10payknmediately m M asdescribedabove,theNodsMoldervalihavethenghi tebeptid tiasliby meIgr egoftis cosit andemensessilomeys" in enforungINANoIsto itra exle111Ilol pnkltitisd by epMIcable law.iness expersesInclude,Icr example.. seamanabia fema,. 7, GMNG
Related Contentin Richmond County
Case
West Fork Funding Llc v. Classic Ny Mortgage Llc A/K/A Classic Mortgage Llc,
Aug 13, 2024 |Real Property - Other (Quiet Title) |Real Property - Other (Quiet Title) |151648/2024
Case
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., v. Daniel R. Salt, Christine Salt, Citibank, N.A., New York City Parking Violations Bureau, New York City Environmental Control Board, New York City Transit Adjudication Bureau, John Doe #1 Through John Doe #12 the last twelve names being fictitious and unknown to plaintiff, the persons or parties intended being the tenants, occupants, persons or corporations, if any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the premises, described in the complaint,
Aug 14, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |135350/2024
Case
Carline Scalfani, Mary Ann Smaldone v. Angela Russo
Aug 12, 2024 |Real Property - Other (Declaratory Judgment) |Real Property - Other (Declaratory Judgment) |151625/2024
Case
U.S. Bank Trust National Association, Not In Its Individual Capacity, But Solely As Trustee Of Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2021-Rp2 v. Sivaneswaran Thambiah A/K/A SIVA NESWA THAMBIAH A/K/A SIVA THAMBIAH, New York City Parking Violations Bureau, Helios Residential Solar Fund Llc, 2005 Fa Llc, New York City Environmental Control Board, John Doe #1-5 And, Jane Doe #1-5 Said Names Being Fictitious, It Being The Intention Of Plaintiff To Designate Any And All Occupants, Tenants, Persons Or Corporations, If Any, Having Or Claiming An Interest In Or Lien Upon The Premises Being Foreclosed Herein,
Aug 15, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |135352/2024
Case
State Of New York Mortgage Agency v. Steven Carrigan, John Doe
Aug 12, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |135346/2024
Case
Cee Jay Real Estate Development Corp. v. M.S.B Development Company Inc.
Aug 09, 2024 |Real Property - Other (Specific Preformance) |Real Property - Other (Specific Preformance) |151615/2024
Case
Longbridge Financial, Llc v. Sophia M. Biondolillo AS HEIR AND DISTRIBUTEE OF THE ESTATE OF VIVIAN BIONDOLILLO, Heirs And Distributees Of The Estate Of Vivian Biondolillo, Federal Housing Commissioner, New York City Parking Violations Bureau, New York City Environmental Control Board, New York City Transit Adjudication Bureau, New York State Department Of Taxation And Finance, United States Of America, John Doe 1-JOHN DOE 12 THE LAST TWELVE NAMES BEING FICTITIOUS AND UNKNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,THE PERSONS OR PARTIES INTENDED BEING THE TENANTS,OCCUPANTS,PERSONS OR CORPORATIONS,IF ANY,HAVING OR CLAIMING AN INTEREST IN OR LIEN UPON THE PREMISES,DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT
Aug 14, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |135349/2024
Case
Mortgage Assets Management, Llc v. Kim Baydal Caridi AS HEIR TO THE ESTATE OF THERESA BAYDAL, Tammy Baydal AKA TAMMY AYALA AS HEIR TO THE ESTATE OF THERESA BAYDAL, Debra Perez AKA DEBORAH PEREZ AS HEIR TO THE ESTATE OF THERESA BAYDAL, Gary Baydal AS HEIR TO THE ESTATE OF THERESA BAYDAL, Unknown Heirs Of Theresa Baydal If Living, And If He/She Be Dead, Any And All Persons Unknown To Plaintiff, Claiming, Or Who May Claim To Have An Interest In, Or General Or Specific Lien Upon The Real Property Described In This Action;, Such Unknown Persons Being Herein Generally Described And Intended To Be Included In Wife, Widow, Husband, Widower, Heirs At Law, Next Of Kin, Descendants, Executors, Administrators, Devisees,, Legatees, Creditors, Trustees, Committees, Lienors, And Assignees Of Such Deceased, Any And All Persons Deriving Interest In Or Lien Upon, Or Title To Said Real Property By, Through Or Under, Them, Or Either Of Them, And Their Respective Wives, Widows, Husbands, Widowers, Heirs At Law, Next Of Kin, Descendants, Executors, Administrators, Devisees, Legatees, Creditors,, Trustees, Committees, Lienors, And Assigns, All Of Whom And Whose Names, Except As Stated, Are Unknown To Plaintiff, People Of The State Of New York,, United States Of America On Behalf Of The Irs, United States Of America On Behalf Of The Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, New York City Parking Violations Bureau, John Doe
Aug 15, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |135351/2024
Case
Eastern Funding Llc v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 668 Laundry Inc., Yunzhong Li
Aug 15, 2024 |Special Proceedings - Other (Turnover Proceeding) |Special Proceedings - Other (Turnover Proceeding) |85176/2024
Ruling
JAMES W. TSENG AND ROSA Y. JOU, AS TRUSTEES OF THE TSENG AND JOU FAMILY LIVING TRUST UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT DATED APRIL 23, 20 VS GIANCARLO TALLARICO
Aug 13, 2024 |6/18/2022 |24SMCV00596
Case Number: 24SMCV00596 Hearing Date: August 13, 2024 Dept: I The matter is here on a motion for summary judgment and for an FSC. The court turns first to the MSJ. Defendant brings this motion in the instant UD action on the ground that plaintiff failed to register the property as required by the rent stabilization ordinance (RSO). The penalty for failing to do so is that the owner cannot accept any rent. According to the defense, the property in question is a condominium. The RSO exempts single family homes from its reach, but not condominiums. Because this is a condominium, defendant argues, it is subject to the RSO and the failure to register it is fatal to the case. In support, defendant has submitted the deed, which states that the property is a condominium unit. Plaintiff opposes, stating that the board has refused to allow him to register. The court notes that the deed is a bit more ambiguous. It has two parts. One is a divided interest in a particular unit (Unit 7), which is the unit that plaintiff rented to the defendant. It also has a 1/12 undivided interest in the common areas. It is part of a condominium development. In opposition, plaintiff states that he did register the until for a number of years. But in 2018, he was informed by the Board that he could no longer register it because it had an ineligible Land Use Code. After being so informed by the Board, he stopped registering the property or trying to do so. Recentlyafter suit was filed but before the motionhe double checked. He personally went to the Board, and it confirmed that he could not register the property. To make sure, he went to Building and Safety, but they provided no information. He went to Housing, but they too provided no information. Then he went to Billing, and they confirmed what he had been told in 2018. (Tseng Decl., and Ex. 3 thereto.) The court notes two things. First, the ordinance is ambiguous. It exempts single family homes. It appears that the property in question is what a lay person would view as a single family home. The court gleans that it is a standalone dwelling on a divided interest of the development. It is not a part of a converted apartment building; it does not share walls or pipes or wiring or the like with other units any more than would two neighbors owning separate parcels. The term condominium is not defined in the ordinance, or at least no definition has been pointed out. The court does not believe it is irrational or improper for this home to be exempt. But the converse is also true. The development as a whole is called a condominium. It is (one would think) governed by an association that has responsibilities that might be stronger than a normal neighborhood association. There are common areas jointly owned. It would not be irrational nor improper for this home to be within the RSO either. It appears that the agency has interpreted the RSO as exempting this property. From the lofty halls of the US Supreme Court to this lowly trial court, judges are looking at how much deference to give agency interpretations of statutes (or ordinances). The court will not go into that detailed analysis (and the court is, of course, not governed by federal law here). But suffice it to say that the court is inclined to give the agency some deference in the interpretation of the RSO. The court notes that such agencies generally are not shy about drawing units into their purview, and so a determination that this property is outside the RSOs scope is hardly one that the court ought to look at with a jaundiced eye. The court will therefore adopt the Boards interpretation and find that this unit need not be registered. The court notes that in many ways the reasons that single family homes are exempted would apply to this unit. But there is a bit more. This is an unusual case. The court has seen a number of cases with units that are plainly within the RSO but that have not been registered because the owner simply does not want to be bothered or have any agency tell the owner what can or cannot be charged as rent. But this plaintiff is not such a person. This plaintiff did register the property until he was told by the Board that he could no longer do so. This is no scofflaw; this is someone who has made an effort to comply. That does not change the ordinances meaning, of course. But it is relevant. Where the reason that property is not registered with the Board is because the Board refuses to allow it to be registered, it would be a deprivation of due process to then tell the owner that the owner is in violation of the registration requirement and impose a penalty. Fundamental due process theory tells us that a person cannot be penalized by the government for not doing something that the government will not allow the person to do. And such a result would be a grossly unfair windfall to the tenant. Defendants argument is that he is entitled to stay on the property forever, rent free (or at least until the Board changes its mind, if ever). While the court would go there if the law absolutely required it, the court does not go willingly to such an absurd and unfair position. For the foregoing reasons, the motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Given that, the court will inquire about the trial. The court is in receipt of the joint jury instructions and the joint statement of compliance. The joint statement is only applicable to limited jurisdiction cases. This is an unlimited jurisdiction case. Accordingly, it is not sufficient. However, on August 12, 2024, the parties filed joint witness and exhibit lists that are essentially the same, and that is closer. But there are still some missing documents. The court will inquire as to the situation. The court notes that it is in trial, so this case may trail that one. If the case is ready for trial, then the court will continue it to a Friday so as to accommodate the jury trial starting today.
Ruling
RADOJE DRMANAC, et al vs PAJARO DUNES ASSOCIATION, et al
Aug 17, 2024 |23CV01971
23CV01971DRMANAC et al. v. PAJARO DUNES ASSOCIATION, et al. MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT The motion for defendants’ attorneys’ fees is continued to October 9, 2024, so that bothparties can provide additional information. No later than August 30, 3024, defense counselTagliere and Li shall file their itemized billable entries (as Mr. Ciliberto has). No later thanSeptember 18, 2024, plaintiffs shall file one supplemental declaration supporting the breakdownfor their proposed reduced fee order of $59,391.20 ($42,214.50 for the anti-SLAPP motion and$17,176.70 for the enforcement action). Defendants may file a reply of no more than five (5)pages in response to plaintiffs’ supplemental declaration no later than September 25, 2024.Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice: 1. Monterey County Superior Court Local Rule 4.160: Granted. 2. San Benito County Superior Court Local Rule 2.11: Granted. 3. Order in motion for attorneys’ fees, Wu v. Fong, Los Angeles County Superior Court, case no. 22AHCV00376: Denied. Trial court orders have no precedential value. (Bolanos v. Sup. Ct., supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at 761.)
Ruling
BINFORD ROAD LLC VS PAUL DEN BESTE
Aug 14, 2024 |CV2104251
DATE: 08/13/24 TIME: 1:30 P.M. DEPT: A CASE NO: CV2104251PRESIDING: HON. STEPHEN P. FRECCEROREPORTER: CLERK: RON BAKERPLAINTIFF: BINFORD ROAD LLC vs.DEFENDANT: PAUL DEN BESTENATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION — OTHER: TO APPOINT SUCCESSORRECEIVER, ETC. RULINGBefore the Court is Defendant Paul Den Beste’s (“Defendant”) motion for the appointment of asuccessor receiver. The parties appeared for a case management conference on August 9, 2024and agreed that the motion should be granted. The hearing set for August 13, 2024 is thereforeVACATED and the motion is GRANTED.The Court notes, however, Defendant asserts in his moving papers that the receiver is an“indispensable” party to this litigation. To the extent Defendant seeks to join any party to thislitigation, whether indispensable or otherwise, or to the extent he seeks other relief, he may onlydo so only through a properly noticed motion set for hearing before the Court. The Court’spresent order is limited to granting the request for appointment of a successor trustee.As set forth at the case management conference, the parties shall file and serve their nominationsfor a receiver and proposed order for the receivership as follows: 1 The parties submit nominations, together with a summary of qualifications for the nominee, along with a proposed order for the receivership on August 16, 2024. 2. Any objections or response to the opposing side’s submission on August 23, 2024.Unless otherwise ordered, the Court will take the matter under submission and issue an orderwithout a hearing.CV2104251 All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B)to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear inperson or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument inaccordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with theannounced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11. The Zoom appearance information for August, 2024 is as follows: https:/Avww.zoomgov.com/j/1602925171?pwd=NUdsaVlabHNrNjZGZjFsVjVSTUVqQT09 Meeting ID: 160 292 5171 Passcode: 868745 If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling (669) 254-5252and using the above-provided passcode, Zoom appearance information may also be found onthe Court’s website: https:/Avww.marin.courts.ca.go'Page 2 of 2
Ruling
Ismael Ramirez vs. Laura Santos
Aug 15, 2024 |23CECG04611
Re: Ismael Ramirez v. Laura Santos. Superior Court Case No. 23CECG04611Hearing Date: August 15, 2024 (Dept. 502)Motion: Defendants Laura Santos, Carrie Simmons, Juan Francisco Alvarez and Envision Realty Inc.’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike the First Amended Complaint. If timely requested, oral argument will be entertained on Thursday, August 15, 2024 at 1:00 PM in Department 502.Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion to strike the first and second causes of action of the FirstAmended Complaint. To overrule the general demurrer to the First Amended Complaint. (Code Civ.Proc. §430.10, subd. (e).) Defendants Laura Santos, Carrie Simmons, Juan FranciscoAlvarez, and Envision Realty, Inc. to file an answer to the First Amended Complaint. Thetime in which the answer can be filed will run from service by the clerk of the minuteorder.Explanation: As a threshold matter, the court will address the motion to strike the addition oftwo causes of action in order to define the scope of the demurrer to the first amendedcomplaint. The addition of two new causes of action was not directly specified within thescope of leave granted in the court’s ruling on the April 25, 2024 demurrer to thecomplaint. However, the two additional causes of action for fraud and fraudulenttransfer directly respond to the deficiencies identified in the April 25, 2024 ruling. (Patrickv. Alacer Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 995, 1015.) The additional causes of actionaddress absence of allegations to support plaintiffs’ standing to bring their quiet titleclaim and provide the basis of for the alleged financial elder abuse. Accordingly, themotion to strike is denied. Defendants’ general demurrer to the verified first amended complaint asserts thefirst amended complaint “fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of actionagainst all moving defendants, in that the First Amended Complaint fails to plead factsestablishing there was any valid written agreement by Plaintiffs to obtain legal title to thesubject property and that the Plaintiffs’ [sic] lack standing to bring such action.”(Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Verified First Amended Complaint, ¶ 1.) Defendants have notraised arguments as to the specificity of the allegations as plead in the First AmendedComplaint. There is no general demurrer directed at any specified cause of action, ratherdefendants’ demurrer is directed at the entire first amended complaint. Where there areseveral causes of action in the complaint, a demurrer to the entire complaint may beoverruled if any cause of action is properly stated. (Warren v. Atchison, Topeka & SantaFe Ry. Co. (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 24, 36.) The stated basis for defendants’ argument as to why the first amended complaintfails to state a cause of action is focused on plaintiffs’ standing to bring their quiet titleclaim. Plaintiffs allege they have standing to quiet title of defendant Santos because sheacquired title to the property by fraudulent transfer. Accordingly, the focus of the court’sanalysis will be plaintiffs’ second cause of action against defendants Ramirez and Santosalleging fraudulent transfer. “A fraudulent conveyance is a transfer by the debtor of property to a third personundertaken with the intent to prevent a creditor from reaching that interest to satisfy itsclaim.” (Yaesu Electronics Corp. v. Tamura (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 8, 13.) The UniformVoidable Transactions Act (UFTA), Civil Code section 3439, et seq., states the elements ofa claim of fraudulent transfer that would void such a transfer: A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is voidable as to a creditor, whether the creditor's claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation as follows: (1) With actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor. (2) Without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor either: (A) Was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction. (B) Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that the debtor would incur, debts beyond the debtor's ability to pay as they became due.(Civ. Code § 3439.04, subd. (a).) Defendants argue the first amended complaint does not satisfy the elements of afraudulent transfer under the UFTA because plaintiffs have not alleged facts to supporttheir standing as creditors. In opposition, plaintiffs identify the allegations of the complaintdemonstrating plaintiffs provided a total of $56,000 to defendant Ramirez toward thepurchase of the Corona property and additionally paid the mortgage payments directlyto Ramirez for twenty years. (FAC, ¶¶ 20-23, 26.) The payment of this money to Ramirezwith the understanding it was secured as equity in the Corona property, as alleged,supports finding plaintiffs have a right to payment of these sums and qualifies them ascreditors as defined by the UFTA. (Civ. Code § 3439.01, subd. (b)-(c). Defendants additionally argue plaintiffs have failed to allege a claim of fraud inhaving made the transfer in order to satisfy the element of actual intent to defraud inCivil Code section 3439.04, subdivision (a)(1). Defendants interpret the element to requirea showing of all elements of a claim for fraud: (1) a misrepresentation, (2) knowledge offalsity, (3) intent to induce reliance, (4) actual and justifiable reliance, and (5) resultingdamage. This interpretation is not supported by the statute. The statute defines how to determine actual intent, as used in Civil Code section3439.04, subdivision (a)(1), by listing factors (1) through (11) for consideration. (Civ. Code§ 3439.04, subd. (b).) Here, plaintiffs have alleged facts that support several of the factors.Defendant Santos is alleged to have paid $0 in exchange for the grant deed to theCorona property. (FAC ¶¶ 38, 58.) This would speak to “[w]hether the value ofconsideration received by the debtor was reasonably equivalent to the value of theasset transferred ….” (Civ. Code § 3439.04, subd. (b)(8).) Santos is alleged to haveconspired with defendant Ramirez in transferring the property and sale of the property todefraud plaintiffs, which would characterize her role as one of an insider. (FAC ¶¶ 57-58.)This is consistent with considering “[w]hether the transfer or obligation was to an insider.”(Civ. Code, §3439.04, subd. (b)(1). Indeed, all defendants are alleged to have conspired,aided and abetted, and ratified these acts with the intent to defraud plaintiffs1. (FAC, ¶¶12-16) Accordingly, the allegations of the first amended complaint are sufficient to statea cause of action for fraudulent transfer against defendants Ramirez and Santos. Havingfound the allegations of the fraudulent transfer are sufficient, plaintiffs have adequatelyalleged facts to support their standing to bring an action for quiet title. Further, theallegations support the cause of action for financial elder abuse based on the fraudulenttransfer of the property. (FAC, ¶ 93.) Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint properly states the challenged causes of actionfor fraudulent transfer, quiet title, and financial elder abuse. As a result, the demurrer tothe entire first amended complaint is overruled. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Proceduresection 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute orderadopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerkwill constitute notice of the order.Tentative RulingIssued By: KCK on 08/14/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)1These allegations go to defendants’ argument that defendants Simmons, Alvarez and Envisiondid not assist in the fraudulent conveyance that serves as the basis for the fourth cause of actionfor financial elder abuse.
Ruling
MARIA ELENA ESTRADA VS JUAN MONCADA ET AL
Aug 14, 2024 |BC696401
Case Number: BC696401 Hearing Date: August 14, 2024 Dept: 61 MARIA ELENA ESTRADA VS JUAN MONCADA ET ALTENTATIVE Plaintiff Maria Elena Estrada (Plaintiff) move to appoint an elisor for Defendant and Judgment Debtor Antonio Morales (Morales), to execute documents and transfers that Morales was ordered to execute to effectuate this courts quiet title judgment. (Motion at p. 9.) At issue here is the court's authority and reasonableness in issuing the order appointing the elisor. As used in the case at bar, consistent with its common legal meaning, an elisor is a person appointed by the court to perform functions like the execution of a deed or document. (Rayan v. Dykeman (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1629, 1635, fn. 2, [274 Cal.Rptr. 672] (Rayan).) A court typically appoints an elisor to sign documents on behalf of a recalcitrant party in order to effectuate its judgments or orders, where the party refuses to execute such documents. (See Ibid.) We note that under Code of Civil Procedure section 262.8, elisor specifically means a person designated by the court to execute process or orders in an action or proceeding involving the sheriff *1021 and/or coroner. Code of Civil Procedure's use of the term is not at issue in this case. Courts use elisors in matters like this one to enforce their orders. Under section 128, subdivision (a)(4), [e]very court shall have the power .... [¶] ... [¶] [t]o compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process, and to the orders of a judge out of court, in an action or proceeding pending therein. This statute has codified the principle of [t]he inherent power of the trial court to exercise reasonable control over litigation before it, as well as the inherent and equitable power to achieve justice and prevent misuse of processes lawfully issued.... (Venice Canals Resident Home Owners Assn. v. Superior Court (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 675, 679, [140 Cal.Rptr. 361].) In Blueberry Properties, LLC v. Chow (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1017, 10201021, the court held that the trial court did not err in appointing the clerk of the court as an elisor to sign the escrow documents on behalf of the defendant. (Id. at p. 1020.) This courts judgment of August 12, 2020, directed Defendant Morales to convey to Plaintiff any and all interest in the property on Naomi Avenue in Los Angeles that is the subject of this action. Prior to judgment, Plaintiff obtained an order to serve Morales by publication because they were unable to locate him. (Estrada Decl. ¶¶ 1521.) Since judgment, Plaintiff is still unable to locate Morales, has not been contacted by him, and has been unable to secure his conveyance as ordered by the court. (Estrada Decl. ¶¶ 2730.) Because of the inability to contact Morales, Plaintiff has shown that appointment of an elisor is necessary to effectuate this courts judgment under Code of Civil Procedure § 128, subd. (a)(4). The motion is therefore GRANTED.
Ruling
JOHN LE NGUYEN VS MINH LE NGUYEN
Aug 16, 2024 |22AHCV00822
Case Number: 22AHCV00822 Hearing Date: August 16, 2024 Dept: 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT JOHN LE NGUYEN, Plaintiff(s), vs. MINH LE NGUYEN, Defendant(s). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 22AHCV00822 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO APPOINT PARTITION REFEREE Dept. 3 8:30 a.m. August 16, 2024 ) On February 27, 2024, plaintiff John Le Nguyen (Plaintiff) filed this motion requesting the Court appoint a referee to carry out the sale of the property located at 2070 Meridian Avenue, South Pasadena, California 91030 (the South Pasadena Property) and order that the costs of the sale and fees of the referee be paid from the sale proceeds. At the previous hearing on July 12, 2024, the Court continued the hearing on this motion and ordered the parties to meet and confer on selecting a referee. The parties were also ordered to submit a joint statement in which they would nominate up to 3 individuals who are willing to serve as a referee in this matter and include each individuals curricula vitae, fee schedules, and any other information. The joint statement was also supposed to include a description of efforts made to reach an agreement on who the referee should be. The Court informed the parties that if the parties were unable to reach an agreement, the Court would choose one of the nominees identified in the report and appoint them as a referee for the sale of the South Pasadena Property. No joint statement has been filed since the last hearing. Accordingly, the Court has no nominees for reference to choose from and the motion to appoint a referee is DENIED without prejudice. Dated this 16th day of August, 2024 William A. Crowfoot Judge of the Superior Court Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.
Ruling
SLAUSON-FISHBURN ASSOCIATES, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP VS YUAN LI
Aug 15, 2024 |23NWCV02598
Case Number: 23NWCV02598 Hearing Date: August 15, 2024 Dept: C SLAUSON-FISHBURN ASSOCIATES v. LI CASE NO.: 23NWCV02598 HEARING: 08/15/24 #8 Defendant LIs unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. Moving Party to give Notice. No Opposition filed as of August 12, 2024. This unlawful detainer action was filed on August 11, 2023. Possession is no longer at issue. Defendant LI seeks to leave to file a cross-complaint to state a claim for unlawful lockout. CCP §428.50 states: (a) A party shall file a cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him or her before or at the same time as the answer to the complaint or cross-complaint. (b) Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial. (c) A party shall obtain leave of court to file any cross-complaint except one filed within the time specified in subdivision (a) or (b). Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of action. The Court finds that it would serve the interests of justice to grant Defendant leave to file its proposed Cross-Complaint. It is best to avoid multiplicity or duplicity of actions. The Motion is GRANTED. Defendant LI is ORDERED to file and serve the Cross-Complaint within 30 days.
Ruling
County of Sonoma vs Manzo
Aug 14, 2024 |SCV-267833
SCV-267833, County of Sonoma v. ManzoThis matter is on calendar for a motion by Plaintiff County of Sonoma (“County” or “Plaintiff”)for an order to show cause re: contempt against defendants Lisa Figueroa and Gabriel Manzo(together “Defendants”).There is no proof of service reflecting that the Defendants are in receipt of the original motion.The motion is therefore DENIED without prejudice.
Document
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., v. Daniel R. Salt, Christine Salt, Citibank, N.A., New York City Parking Violations Bureau, New York City Environmental Control Board, New York City Transit Adjudication Bureau, John Doe #1 Through John Doe #12 the last twelve names being fictitious and unknown to plaintiff, the persons or parties intended being the tenants, occupants, persons or corporations, if any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the premises, described in the complaint,
Aug 14, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |135350/2024
Document
Carrington Mortgage Services Llc v. Barbara Cafaro, As Potential Administrator And Heir, Devisee, Distributee Of The Estate Of Maureen Kramaroff Aka Maureen V. Kramaroff, William Holtz, As Heir, Devisee, Distributee Of The Estate Of Maureen Kramaroff Aka Maureen V. Kramaroff, Kathleen Esposito, As Heir, Devisee, Distributee Of The Estate Of Maureen Kramaroff Aka Maureen V. Kramaroff, Nancy Strype, As Heir, Devisee, Distributee Of The Estate Maureen Kramaroff Aka Maureen V. Kramaroff, Maryellen Holtz, As Heir, Devisee, Distributee Of The Estate Of Maureen Kramaroff Aka Maureen V. Kramaroff, Any And All Known And Unknown Heirs, Devisees, Grantees, Assignees, Lienors, Creditors, Trustees, And All Other Parties Claiming An Interst By, Through, Under Or Against The Estate Of Maureen Kramaroff Aka Maureen V. Kramaroff, United States Of America Acting On Behalf Of The Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, United States Of America Acting On Behalf Of The Department Of Treasury - Internal Revenue Service, New York State Department Of Taxation And Finance, Richmond County Savings Bank, Nka Flagstar Bank, National Association, John Doe #1 Through John Doe #10, Said Names Being Fictitious And Unknown To Plaintiff, Intended To Be Possible Tenants Or Occupants Of The Premises, Or Corporations, Persons, Or Other Entities Having Or Claiming A Lien Upon The Mortgaged Premises
Jul 22, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |135320/2024
Document
Carrington Mortgage Services Llc v. Barbara Cafaro, As Potential Administrator And Heir, Devisee, Distributee Of The Estate Of Maureen Kramaroff Aka Maureen V. Kramaroff, William Holtz, As Heir, Devisee, Distributee Of The Estate Of Maureen Kramaroff Aka Maureen V. Kramaroff, Kathleen Esposito, As Heir, Devisee, Distributee Of The Estate Of Maureen Kramaroff Aka Maureen V. Kramaroff, Nancy Strype, As Heir, Devisee, Distributee Of The Estate Maureen Kramaroff Aka Maureen V. Kramaroff, Maryellen Holtz, As Heir, Devisee, Distributee Of The Estate Of Maureen Kramaroff Aka Maureen V. Kramaroff, Any And All Known And Unknown Heirs, Devisees, Grantees, Assignees, Lienors, Creditors, Trustees, And All Other Parties Claiming An Interst By, Through, Under Or Against The Estate Of Maureen Kramaroff Aka Maureen V. Kramaroff, United States Of America Acting On Behalf Of The Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, United States Of America Acting On Behalf Of The Department Of Treasury - Internal Revenue Service, New York State Department Of Taxation And Finance, Richmond County Savings Bank, Nka Flagstar Bank, National Association, John Doe #1 Through John Doe #10, Said Names Being Fictitious And Unknown To Plaintiff, Intended To Be Possible Tenants Or Occupants Of The Premises, Or Corporations, Persons, Or Other Entities Having Or Claiming A Lien Upon The Mortgaged Premises
Jul 22, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |135320/2024
Document
Mortgage Assets Management, Llc v. Kim Baydal Caridi AS HEIR TO THE ESTATE OF THERESA BAYDAL, Tammy Baydal AKA TAMMY AYALA AS HEIR TO THE ESTATE OF THERESA BAYDAL, Debra Perez AKA DEBORAH PEREZ AS HEIR TO THE ESTATE OF THERESA BAYDAL, Gary Baydal AS HEIR TO THE ESTATE OF THERESA BAYDAL, Unknown Heirs Of Theresa Baydal If Living, And If He/She Be Dead, Any And All Persons Unknown To Plaintiff, Claiming, Or Who May Claim To Have An Interest In, Or General Or Specific Lien Upon The Real Property Described In This Action;, Such Unknown Persons Being Herein Generally Described And Intended To Be Included In Wife, Widow, Husband, Widower, Heirs At Law, Next Of Kin, Descendants, Executors, Administrators, Devisees,, Legatees, Creditors, Trustees, Committees, Lienors, And Assignees Of Such Deceased, Any And All Persons Deriving Interest In Or Lien Upon, Or Title To Said Real Property By, Through Or Under, Them, Or Either Of Them, And Their Respective Wives, Widows, Husbands, Widowers, Heirs At Law, Next Of Kin, Descendants, Executors, Administrators, Devisees, Legatees, Creditors,, Trustees, Committees, Lienors, And Assigns, All Of Whom And Whose Names, Except As Stated, Are Unknown To Plaintiff, People Of The State Of New York,, United States Of America On Behalf Of The Irs, United States Of America On Behalf Of The Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, New York City Parking Violations Bureau, John Doe
Aug 15, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |135351/2024
Document
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Successor By Merger To Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Association, as Trustee f/k/a Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association, as Trustee for Renaissance HEL Trust 2004-2 v. Peter E. Tartaglione, Barbara E. Tartaglione, Wilmington Trust, National Association, Not In Its Individual Capacity But Solely As Trustee Under The Greenwich Investors Xl Pass- Through Trust Agreement Dated As Of March 1, 2012, Capital One Bank (Usa), N.A., Ford Motor Credit Company, Llc, Criminal Court Of The City Of New York, New York State Department Of Taxation And Finance, United States Of America, City Of New York Environmental Control Board, City Of New York Parking Violations Bureau, City Of New York Transit Adjudication Bureau, John Doe #1 Through John Doe #12, The Last Twelve Names Being Fictitious And Unknown To Plaintiff, The Persons Or Parties Intended Being The Tenants, occupants, persons or corporations, if any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the Subject Property described in the Complaint
Aug 07, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |135339/2024
Document
State Of New York Mortgage Agency v. Steven Carrigan, John Doe
Aug 12, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |135346/2024
Document
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., v. Daniel R. Salt, Christine Salt, Citibank, N.A., New York City Parking Violations Bureau, New York City Environmental Control Board, New York City Transit Adjudication Bureau, John Doe #1 Through John Doe #12 the last twelve names being fictitious and unknown to plaintiff, the persons or parties intended being the tenants, occupants, persons or corporations, if any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the premises, described in the complaint,
Aug 14, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |135350/2024
Document
Pennymac Loan Services, Llc v. Anthony Silva, Johnika Manuel, Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, New York City Environmental Control Board, New York City Parking Violations Bureau, New York City Transit Adjudication Bureau, 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
Aug 02, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |135336/2024
