Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB v. Mehraban

6 Citing cases

  1. Deutsche Bank National Tr. Co. v. Quaranta

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 5090 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    Since the plaintiff failed to lay the proper foundation for the admission of the payment records into evidence, those records do not constitute admissible evidence (see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Gordon, 171 A.D.3d at 210). Accordingly, the referee's computations with respect to the total amount due were not substantially supported by the record, and the Supreme Court, in confirming the referee's report, should not have relied upon them (see Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc., FSB v Mehraban, 192 A.D.3d 1066).

  2. HSBC Mortg. Corp. U.S. v. Tehrani

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 4064 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    However, the Supreme Court erred in granting those branches of HSBC 2's motion which were to confirm the referee's report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility (see Pennymac Corp. v Pryce, 211 A.D.3d 1029, 1030; Matter of Cincotta, 139 A.D.3d 1058). Here, the referee's findings with respect to the total amount due on the note were not substantially supported by the record, inasmuch as the referee's findings were premised upon a business record that covered the defendant's payment history beginning only in January 2015, whereas the referee's computation was based on the defendant having defaulted in October 2009 (see Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Mehraban, 192 A.D.3d 1066; Citimortgage, Inc. v Kidd, 148 A.D.3d 767, 768-769).

  3. Wells Fargo Bank v. Laronga

    219 A.D.3d 1559 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 5 times

    However, as the defendant correctly contends, the affidavit "constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value because the affiant did not produce any of the business records [s]he purportedly relied upon in making [her] calculations" ( U.S. Bank N.A. v. Barton, 207 A.D.3d 496, 498, 169 N.Y.S.3d 523 [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeHSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Sharon, 202 A.D.3d 764, 766, 158 N.Y.S.3d 834 ; Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Gordon, 171 A.D.3d 197, 208–209, 97 N.Y.S.3d 286 ; Citimortgage, Inc. v. Kidd, 148 A.D.3d 767, 768–769, 49 N.Y.S.3d 482 ). Moreover, while the referee's report found that the mortgaged premises should be sold in one parcel, the referee failed to identify the documents or other sources upon which she based that finding (seeWilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v. Mehraban, 192 A.D.3d 1066, 146 N.Y.S.3d 130 ; Citimortgage, Inc. v. Kidd, 148 A.D.3d at 769, 49 N.Y.S.3d 482 ). Under the circumstances, the referee's findings with respect to the total amount due and whether the subject property could be sold in one parcel were not substantially supported by the record (seeU.S. Bank N.A. v. Barton, 207 A.D.3d at 498, 169 N.Y.S.3d 523 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Sharon, 202 A.D.3d at 766, 158 N.Y.S.3d 834 ).

  4. Wilmington Tr. v. Mahone

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 4580 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

    However, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of JPMorgan's motion which were to confirm the referee's report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. "[T]he referee's findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record inasmuch as the computation was premised upon unproduced business records" (Citimortgage, Inc. v Kidd, 148 A.D.3d 767, 768-769; see Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Mehraban, 192 A.D.3d 1066). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for a new report computing the amount due to the plaintiff, followed by further proceedings in accordance with CPLR 4403 and the entry of an appropriate amended judgment thereafter.

  5. Wells Fargo Bank v. Dhanani

    201 A.D.3d 1004 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

    Here, "the referee's findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record inasmuch as the computation was premised upon unproduced business records" ( Citimortgage, Inc. v. Kidd, 148 A.D.3d 767, 768–769, 49 N.Y.S.3d 482 ). We therefore reverse the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new report computing the amount due, to be followed by further proceedings in accordance with CPLR 4403 and the entry of an appropriate amended judgment thereafter (seeWilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v. Mehraban, 192 A.D.3d 1066, 146 N.Y.S.3d 130 ). In view of the foregoing, we do not address the remaining contention as to whether the defendant is entitled to a hearing before the referee.

  6. Wells Fargo Bank v. Dhanani

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 460 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    Here, "the referee's findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record inasmuch as the computation was premised upon unproduced business records" (Citimortgage, Inc. v Kidd, 148 A.D.3d 767, 768-769). We therefore reverse the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new report computing the amount due, to be followed by further proceedings in accordance with CPLR 4403 and the entry of an appropriate amended judgment thereafter (see Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Mehraban, 192 A.D.3d 1066). In view of the foregoing, we do not address the remaining contention as to whether the defendant is entitled to a hearing before the referee.