Decided on June 29, 2011

Supreme Court, Kings County

Deutsche Bank Trust Company of America as Trustee for RALI 2006QS10, Plaintiffs,

against

Charmaine Davis, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. AS NOMINEE FOR HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL NETWORK, INC., NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT ADJUDICATION BUREAU, MR. DAVIS, ET AL., Defendants.

EXCERPTS:

4210/09

Herbert Kramer, J.

The following papers have been read on this motion:

Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/Papers Numbered

Petition/Cross Motion and

Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed

Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations)

Reply Affidavits (Affirmations)

_______________(Affirmation)_

Other Papers

Are parties required to negotiate in good faith during the foreclosure settlement conferences?In light of the state and federal statutes, particularly CPLR §3408, this Court holds that not only are the parties required to come to this Court in good faith, but also to negotiate in good faith towards creation of a mutually satisfactory modification agreement.

[…]

Therefore, this Court stays the entire matter until such time as the plaintiff moves the Court to resume negotiations in good faith.[FN2] Additionally, plaintiff’s attorney is sanctioned 50% of interest due to the plaintiff from April 23, 2009, the date of first HAMP conference, until June 3, 2011, the date of the parties appearance in Part 13, due to delay directly attributable to plaintiff. Further, defendant is directed to pay $3,000 per month [FN3] to the County Clerk until the stay is lifted or the [*3]amount of the mortgage repaid.[FN4]

As a final note, the record reflects that there is a question as to the genuineness of plaintiff’s possession of the mortgage, and the possession of the mortgage at the inception of this action. There is indication that the assignments may have been flawed. It is this Court’s position that the plaintiff, who assigns and receives mortgages with reasonable frequency, cannot avoid the obligations of the state and federal statutes by the continued sale and transfer of mortgages. This Court will not be a willing participant in plaintiff’s smoke and mirrors.

[…]

[ipaper docId=59614204 access_key=key-2vhx8k0obitntmvbrh3 height=600 width=600 /]

Comments

comments