This application is replete with inconsistent and inaccurate proofs concerning the type of loan at issue and whether or not RPAPL $1304 was, in fact complied with. This application is an example of the scores of prior applications for orders of reference from plaintiffs counsel in this action, as well as from plaintiff-banks’ attorneys in general, in which a lack of attention to detail leave this Court and, no doubt, courts throughout the State, the unenviable and overwhelming task of closely scrutinizing hundreds and thousands of foreclosure motions to effectuate the legislative protections afforded to homeowners in the throes of foreclosure. While the sheer volume of foreclosure filings themselves are enough to overwhelm the courts, the poorly and inaccurately drafted applications for orders of reference have an exponentially burdensome effect upon on the courts.
Since the only proper evidentiary proof in this case indicates that the defendant was entitled to a 90-day notice pursuant to RPAPL 5 1304 prior to commencement of this action, and since the plaintiff has failed to submit proper evidentiary proof of compliance with such pre-commencement requirements, the application for an order of reference is denied and the action is dismissed.
Read full text of Decision from Suffolk Co. Supreme Ct. here.