JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. VALENCIA (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Richard Valencia appeals from an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robert I. Caloras, J.), dated September 12, 2024.  The order and judgment of foreclosure and sale, upon an order of the same court dated May 18, 2023, denying that defendant's motion for leave to renew his prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, which had been denied in an order of the same court dated February 8, 2022, granted the plaintiff's motion to confirm a referee's report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, confirmed the referee's report, and directed the sale of the subject property.

ORDERED that the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale is affirmed, with costs.

In 2010, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant Richard Valencia (hereinafter the defendant), among others, to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property located in Queens.  In an order dated February 8, 2022, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant and for an order of reference and denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, in which the defendant had argued, among other things, that the plaintiff failed to comply with RPAPL 1304.

The defendant subsequently moved for leave to renew his prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him based on a purported change in the law.  By order dated May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion.  The plaintiff then moved to confirm the referee's report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale.  In an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale dated September 12, 2024, the court granted the plaintiff's motion, confirmed the referee's report, and directed the sale of the property.  The defendant appeals.

A motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221[e][2]).  “A clarification of the decisional law is a sufficient change in the law to support renewal” (U.S. Bank N.A. v. Hall–Davis, 232 A.D.3d 696, 697, 222 N.Y.S.3d 552 [internal quotation marks omitted]).  Here, however, the defendant failed to demonstrate such a change in the law.  Instead, the defendant merely pointed to case law in which this Court applied established law (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rodriguez, 210 A.D.3d 728, 731, 178 N.Y.S.3d 118;  Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Jong Sim, 197 A.D.3d 1178, 154 N.Y.S.3d 73).  Indeed, the defendant had cited to Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Jong Sim (197 A.D.3d 1178, 154 N.Y.S.3d 73) in opposition to the plaintiff's motion, among other things, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against him.  Accordingly, the defendant's motion for leave to renew was properly denied (see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Hall–Davis, 232 A.D.3d at 697, 222 N.Y.S.3d 552).

“The referee's findings and recommendations are advisory only and have no binding effect on the court, which remains the ultimate arbiter of the dispute” (Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Hassanzadeh, 228 A.D.3d 948, 950, 214 N.Y.S.3d 437;  see Excel Capital Group Corp. v. 225 Ross St. Realty, Inc., 165 A.D.3d 1233, 1236–1237, 87 N.Y.S.3d 604).  Nevertheless, the report of a referee should generally be confirmed whenever the findings are “substantially supported by the record and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” (Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Hassanzadeh, 228 A.D.3d at 950, 214 N.Y.S.3d 437;  see Pennymac Corp. v. Pryce, 211 A.D.3d 1029, 1030, 181 N.Y.S.3d 596).  Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, the referee's computations were substantially supported by the record, in particular, an affidavit of amount due submitted by an employee of the plaintiff's loan servicer, to which the business records the employee relied upon were attached (cf.  Pennymac Corp. v. Pryce, 211 A.D.3d at 1030, 181 N.Y.S.3d 596).  Thus, the Supreme Court properly confirmed the referee's report (see Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Hassanzadeh, 228 A.D.3d at 950–951, 214 N.Y.S.3d 437;  see also HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Nelson, 194 A.D.3d 700, 701, 143 N.Y.S.3d 594).

Likewise, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to reduce the accrual of interest on the mortgage loan.  In an action of an equitable nature, the recovery of interest is within the court's discretion, and the exercise of that discretion will be governed by the particular facts in each case, including any wrongful conduct by either party (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. O'Brien, 234 A.D.3d 730, 731, 225 N.Y.S.3d 318;  Board of Mgrs. of the Poseidon Condominium v. Costantino Prop. Mgt., LLC, 224 A.D.3d 650, 651–652, 205 N.Y.S.3d 132).  Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, he failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff was responsible for unexplained delays or other wrongful conduct and, therefore, that he was entitled to a reduction of the accrual of interest on the mortgage loan (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. O'Brien, 234 A.D.3d at 731, 225 N.Y.S.3d 318;  Board of Mgrs. of the Poseidon Condominium v. Costantino Prop. Mgt., LLC, 224 A.D.3d at 652, 205 N.Y.S.3d 132).

Accordingly, we affirm the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale.

IANNACCI, J.P., WOOTEN, WARHIT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.