Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Aurora Loan Services v Weisblum Appellants Reply Brief 01 Nov 2010

Aurora Loan Services v Weisblum Appellants Reply Brief 01 Nov 2010

Ratings: (0)|Views: 97|Likes:
This document is the Appellant's Reply Brief in the case Aurora Loan Services v. Weisblum, a matter recently decided by the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department. The Appellants in the case are defendants Steven and Patti Weisblum of Westchester County, New York. The respondent is Aurora Loan Services, Inc. This is a key decision relating to the rights of MERS to assign a mortgage in New York State.
This document is the Appellant's Reply Brief in the case Aurora Loan Services v. Weisblum, a matter recently decided by the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department. The Appellants in the case are defendants Steven and Patti Weisblum of Westchester County, New York. The respondent is Aurora Loan Services, Inc. This is a key decision relating to the rights of MERS to assign a mortgage in New York State.

More info:

Published by: William A. Roper Jr. on Jun 29, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/09/2011

pdf

text

original

 
ORIGJrNAL
To
be
Argued
by
PeterKirwin,Esq.TimeRequested:TenMinutes
SUPREMECOURTOFTHE
STATE
OFNEWYORK
APPELLATEDIVISION-SECONDDEPARTMENT
IndexNo.:617412009DocketNo.:2010-05864DocketNo.:2010~3065\
-~-"
-
-
-
_
....
Plaintiff-Respondent,
-against-
STEVENWEISBLUM,PATTIWEISBLUM,JOSEPHINECAIRO,MORTGAGEELECTRONICSYSTEMS,INC.,ASNOMINEEFORLEHMANBROTHERSBANK,FSB
Defendants-Appellants,
DEFENDANTS'-APPELLANTS'REPLYBRIEFKNUCKLES,KOMOSINSKI
&
ELLIOT,LLP
AttorneysforPlaimtff-Bespondent-AuroraLoanServices,LLC
565TaxterRoad,Suite590Elmsford.,NewYork10523(914)345-3020
LAWOFFICEOFFRED
L.
SEEMAN
Attorneys/orDefendants-Appellant-Steven
Weisblum
andPatti
Weisblum
170Broadway,Suite201NewYork,NewYork10038(212)608-5000
PRINTED[REPRODUCED)ONRECYCLEDPAPER
(/)1:>
o~·
"-0
("')'-0
0,...,
~
::0
:r:r"'""
O'
-.:=:
rn
0>
0
r-;......
-.
-orr,
m
>0
-0
-
::J:1_
:::C'
-c
1<
.::r-
S>
Iii
f"rl!::!
:Z:-Ct
C,.
-.;;r:.
.....,
 
PRELIMINARYSTATEMENT'".,.1ARG1JMENT:1PointI:Aurora'sfailuretoprofferanRPAPL§1304affidavitofservicemandatesdismissal.1PointII:MERScannotassignsubjectmortgageabsentproofofauthority.............2CONCLUSION3PRINTINGSPECIFICATIONSTATEMENT
.4
 
PRELIMINARYSTATEMENT
Thedefendants-appellantsherebysubmits
this
replybriefinfurtherthereversaloftheDecisionandOrderofJusticeMaryH.SmithdatedMay19,2010anduponreversalanorderdismissingthisforeclosureaction.
ARGUMENTPOINTIAURORA'SFAILURETOPROFFERANRPAPL§1304AFFIDAVITOFSERVICEMANDATESDISMISSALRPAPL§1304(2)obligatestheplaintiff-respondenttoservethenoticeviaregisteredorcertifiedmailandfirstclassmailtothelastknownaddressoftheborrower.CaselawisclearthatitistheburdenofthelendertoestablishcompliancewithHEPTANotifications.
FirstNationalBankofChicagov.Silver73AD3d
162,899
NYS2d
256
(2
nd
Dept.2010).
Here,therecordisdevoidofanaffidavitofserviceorproofofmailingofthestatutorilyrequiredRPAPL§1304notice.Instead,theplaintiff-respondentreferencespage"63"oftherecord.Page"63"oftherecord,however,isnotanaffidavitofservice.Thus,theprofferedevidencehasnot"createdarebuttablepresumptionthattheintendedrecipientactuallyreceivedit"
CountrywideHome

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->