American Airlines Federal Credit Union, respondent, v. Sabina Mohamed, et al., defendants, Ronald J. Narayanan, et al., appellants. (2014)

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

American Airlines Federal Credit Union, respondent, v. Sabina Mohamed, et al., defendants, Ronald J. Narayanan, et al., appellants.

2013–00081 (Index No. 6657 /11)

Decided: May 28, 2014

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P. LEONARD B. AUSTIN SHERI S. ROMAN SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

City Bar Justice Center, New York, N.Y. (Lynn Armentrout of counsel), for appellants. Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., Plainview, N.Y. (Edward Rugino of counsel), for respondent. Legal Services NYC, New York, N.Y. (Jacob Inwald of counsel), Queens Legal Services, Jamaica, N.Y. (Franklin Romeo of counsel), and Staten Island Legal Services, Staten Island, N.Y. (Joseph Sanders of counsel), amici curiae pro se and for amici curiae South Brooklyn Legal Services, Legal Services NYC–Bronx, Bedford Stuyvesant Community Legal Services, JASA/Legal Services for Elderly in Queens, Western New York Law Center, Nassau/Suffolk Law Services Committee, Inc., MFY Legal Services, Inc., Empire Justice Center, Hiscock Legal Aid Society, and Legal Aid Society (one brief filed). The plaintiff met its initial burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by producing the mortgage, the unpaid note, and an affidavit from its foreclosure specialist evidencing the default in the payment obligations of the defendants Sabina Mohamed and Ronald J. Narayanan (see Baron Assoc., LLC v Garcia Group Enters., Inc., 96 AD3d 793, 793;  GRP Loan, LLC v Taylor, 95 AD3d 1172, 1173;  Citibank, N.A. v Van Brunt Props., LLC, 95 AD3d 1158, 1159).   In response, Ronald J. Narayanan, the only defendant to submit an answer in this action (hereafter the opposing defendant), failed to raise a triable issue of fact relating to any bona fide defense to foreclosure (see Bank of Smithtown v 219 Sagg Main, LLC, 107 AD3d 654, 655).   The affidavit submitted by defense expert Rick Rogers in opposition to the motion, purporting to demonstrate that a loan modification was more economically advantageous for the plaintiff as opposed to foreclosure, did not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff acted in good faith during settlement conferences held in this action pursuant to CPLR 3408, and has no bearing on the lack of hardship ground upon which the plaintiff declined to modify the subject mortgage loan.