Lenders & Their Attorneys Continue To Litter U.S. Courtrooms With False Affirmations In Home Foreclosure Actions
Among the latest attorneys ruffling New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur M. Schack's feathers in a foreclosure action is Donna D. Maio, Esq. of Matthews & Matthews, as evidenced by this excerpt from a recent ruling:
- Both Mr. Phelps and Ms. Maio should have discovered the defects in Ms. Taylor's verification of the subject complaint. The jurat states that the verification was executed in the State of New York and the County of Suffolk [the home county of plaintiff's counsel], but the notary public who took the signature is Deborah Yamaguichi, a Florida notary public, not a New York notary public. Thus, the verification lacks merit and is a nullity.
- Further, Ms. Yamaguchi's notarization states that Ms. Taylor's verification was "Sworn to and subscribed before me this 4th day of June 2008." Even if the jurat properly stated that it was executed in the State of Florida and the County of Duval, where Jacksonville is located, the oath failed to have a certificate required by CPLR § 2309 (c) for "oaths and affirmations taken without the state." CPLR § 2309 (c) requires that:
An oath or affirmation taken without the state shall be treated as if taken within the state if it is accompanied by such certificate or certificates as would be required to entitle a deed acknowledged without the state to be recorded within the state if such deed had been acknowledged before the officer who administered the oath or affirmation.
- The Court is distressed that Ms. Maio falsely affirmed on November 11, 2010 that "pursuant to CPLR § 2106 and under the penalties of perjury," that "the Summons and Complaint and all other documents filed in support of this action for foreclosure are complete and accurate in all relevant respects," when the instant motion papers are incomplete and the verification is defective.
- Moreover, the purpose of the October 20, 2010 Administrative Order requiring affirmations by plaintiff's counsel in foreclosure cases is, according to Chief Judge Lippman, in his October 20, 2010 press release, to ensure "that the documents judges rely on will be thoroughly examined, accurate, and error-free before any judge is asked to take the drastic step of foreclosure
."(1)
For the court ruling, see Washington Mut. Bank v Phillip, 2010 NY Slip Op 52034 (NY Sup. Ct. Kings County, November 29, 2010).
(1) Go here for the required Attorney Affirmation form.
3 comments:
verifications in a foreclosure suit are not even necessary - Donna Maio committed no fraud
verifications are not even required in foreclosure suits - Donna Maio committed no fraud here. The verification was signed by a bank rep in fla, rather than suffolk, so what's the harm? Judge Schack over-reacted. NO HONE OWWER WAS EVICTED
The judge said Donna DeJesu Maio committed fraud. Now Donna DeJesu Maio gets on her anonymously and says "it's not fraud, everyone is doing it". Who should we believe? The judge or the "lawyer" accused of fraud? If Donna DeJesu Maio believes she did not commit fraud, then she should have the courage to use her true name instead of using 'anonymous' comments to declare her innocence.
Post a Comment