From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Lawson

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 9, 2015
134 A.D.3d 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

2014-00867 Index No. 17170/07.

12-09-2015

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etc., respondent, v. Orlena LAWSON, appellant, et al., defendants.

Orlena Lawson, Rosedale, N.Y., appellant pro se.   Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, New York, N.Y. (Lisa J. Fried, Chava Brandriss, Heather R. Gushue, and Stacey A. Lara of counsel), for respondent.


Orlena Lawson, Rosedale, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, New York, N.Y. (Lisa J. Fried, Chava Brandriss, Heather R. Gushue, and Stacey A. Lara of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Orlena Lawson appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.), entered October 18, 2013, which granted the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 2001 and 5019(a) to substitute, nunc pro tunc, a newly signed affidavit of merit and of the amount due in place of the affidavit of merit and of the amount due that was attached to the plaintiff's motion for an order of reference, and thereupon to validate the order of reference dated November 29, 2007, and judgment of foreclosure and sale dated July 7, 2008.

ORDERED that the order entered October 18, 2013, is affirmed, with costs.

On July 10, 2007, the plaintiff commenced the instant action to foreclose on the residential mortgage of the defendant Orlena Lawson. After Lawson failed to appear or answer the complaint, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's unopposed motions for an order of reference and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. Lawson then twice unsuccessfully moved to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale and to stay the foreclosure sale. Thereafter, the plaintiff's current counsel reviewed the documents that had been submitted by the plaintiff's former counsel on the prior motion for an order of reference, and determined that the plaintiff was unable to confirm the accuracy of the notarization contained in that document, as required by Administrative Orders 548/10 and 431/11 of the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts. The plaintiff then moved pursuant to CPLR 2001 and 5019(a) to substitute, nunc pro tunc, a newly signed affidavit of merit and of the amount due in place of the affidavit of merit and of the amount due that had been attached to the plaintiff's motion for an order of reference. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and Lawson appeals.

CPLR 2001 permits a court, at any stage of an action, to disregard a party's mistake, omission, defect, or irregularity if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced (see Matter of Tagliaferri v. Weiler, 1 N.Y.3d 605, 606, 775 N.Y.S.2d 753, 807 N.E.2d 864; Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation & Health Care Ctr., LLC v. Morsello, 97 A.D.3d 611, 612, 948 N.Y.S.2d 377). “ ‘Pursuant to CPLR 5019(a), a trial court has the discretion to correct an order or judgment which contains a mistake, defect, or irregularity not affecting a substantial right of a party’ ” (JSO Assoc., Inc. v. Price, 104 A.D.3d 737, 738, 961 N.Y.S.2d 245, quoting Adams v. Fellingham, 52 A.D.3d 443, 444, 859 N.Y.S.2d 484). The provisions in CPLR 2001 and 5019(a) may only be employed to correct errors where the corrections do not affect a substantial right of the parties (see Goldberger v. Eisner, 90 A.D.3d 835, 836, 935 N.Y.S.2d 135).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion (see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Eaddy, 109 A.D.3d 908, 910, 971 N.Y.S.2d 336; see also Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Otano, 129 A.D.3d 770, 770–771). No substantial right of Lawson will be affected by the court's substitution of the new affidavit of merit and of the amount due (cf. GMAC Mtge., LLC v. Bisceglie, 109 A.D.3d 874, 973 N.Y.S.2d 225). The new proposed affidavit of merit and of the amount due lists the same amount due and owing as that stated in the original affidavit submitted with the motion for the order of reference. Further, Lawson has remained in possession of the subject property throughout the pendency of the instant action.

Lawson's remaining contentions are either without merit or improperly before this Court.


Summaries of

Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Lawson

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 9, 2015
134 A.D.3d 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Lawson

Case Details

Full title:DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etc., respondent, v. Orlena LAWSON…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 9, 2015

Citations

134 A.D.3d 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
20 N.Y.S.3d 624
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 9064

Citing Cases

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Dalessio

"CPLR 2001 permits a court, at any stage of an action, to disregard a party's mistake, omission, defect, or…

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Pabon

Notably, “[n]othing in the Administrative Order[ ] requires the dismissal of an action merely because the…