8/3/2019 Lamy 1 Dec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lamy-1-dec 1/2

_______~ _ _ -Index No: 03004912005

I

I1 SHOR T FORMORDER

1 SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORKIASTRIAL PART 9 - SUFFOLK COUNTY

~

PRESENT:

Hon. EDWARD D. BURKEActing Justice of Supreme Court

Motion IUD : NONE - Exparte

ORDERNOTSIGNED”Mot Se q# : 001 M D

I LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as1 T r u s t e e I

I C /O Chas e H om e F inance , LL C10790 Rancho Bernard0 Road

III

1 San Diego, CA 92127, I

Plaintiff(s) , j- against - I

I I

II~ M I C H A E L L A M Y , J O A N L A M Y ,i “J O H N D O E ” , the name being fictitious, it being the

intention of Plaintiff to desi nate any and all occupants ofi premises being foreclosef herein, and any parties,corporations or entities, if any, having or claiming an

~ interest in or lien upon the Mortgag ed Premises,

I

II

;

;I

Defendant(s) . II

I

STEVEN J. BAUM, ESQ.Attorneys fo r Plaintiff(s)

220 Northpointe Parkway, Suite G

Amherst, New York 14428

I Upo n the following papers numbered 1 to3 ead on this motion by the plaintiff for an order fixing the defaultsof the mortgagors and appointing a referee to compute ;Notice of M otiod Ord er to S how Cause and supporting papers1 to 3 ;Notice of Cross Motion an d supporting papers ;Answe ring Affidavjts and suppo rting papers .;ReplyingAffidavits and supporting papers ; Other ;( ) it is,

~

ORDERED that this ex-parte application (#OO 1) by the plaintiff for a n order, inter alia, fixing1 the defaults of the mortgagor defendants and appointing a referee to compu te amounts due under the1 terms of the note and mo rtgage that are the subject of this foreclosu re action is considered under1 CPLR 32 15 an d RPAPL 13 12 and is denied. It is well established that a plaintiff seeking a default

1judg m ent must establish the following: 1) due service of the summ ons and complaint within one (1)l year of the interposition of the pla in tif fs motion; 2) a default in answering or otherwise appearingon the part of the defendants; and 3) facts which constitute cognizable claims against the defendants(CPLR 3215(b)(c); Beaton v Transit Facility Corp., 14 AD3d 637, 789 NYS 2d 314; Morgan v

~ Bagayyoko, 1 AD3d 5 82, 767 NYS2d 631). It is also well established that one of the elem ents ofa cognizable claim for foreclosure of a mortgage is that the plaintiff is the ow ner of the note andmo rtgage at the time of the comm enceme nt of the foreclosure action (Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d537, 536 NYS2d 92; see, also, Katz v Eastville Realty Co., 249 AD2d 24 3,6 72 NYS2d 308).1

8/3/2019 Lamy 1 Dec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lamy-1-dec 2/2