Call Today for a Free Consultation: New York: 347-354-4676  Westchester: 347-354-4676  Long Island: 347-354-4676

Pulvers, Pulvers, Thompson L.L.P.
  • Home
  • About
    • About Our Law Firm
    • Marc R. Thompson Esq.
    • Andrew Wiese Esq.
    • Harlan B. Thompson Esq.
    • Stacy L. Thompson Esq.
    • Marvin Leicher Esq.
    • Jeffrey Fried Esq.
    • Michael Kutner Esq.
    • Andrew Wiese Esq.
    • Jennifer Golden Esq.
    • Brian Kutner Esq.
    • David Thompson
    • Tim Walcott
    • Daniel Ruiz
  • Our Legal Services
    • Construction Accidents
    • Medical Malpractice
    • Motor Vehicle Accidents
    • Serious Personal Injuries
    • Sexual Harassment
    • Injuries To Children
    • Dangerous Products
    • Additional Services
  • Case Settlements
    • Customer Testimonials
  • Areas We Serve
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Home
  • About
    • About Our Law Firm
    • Marc R. Thompson Esq.
    • Andrew Wiese Esq.
    • Harlan B. Thompson Esq.
    • Stacy L. Thompson Esq.
    • Marvin Leicher Esq.
    • Jeffrey Fried Esq.
    • Michael Kutner Esq.
    • Andrew Wiese Esq.
    • Jennifer Golden Esq.
    • Brian Kutner Esq.
    • David Thompson
    • Tim Walcott
    • Daniel Ruiz
  • Our Legal Services
    • Construction Accidents
    • Medical Malpractice
    • Motor Vehicle Accidents
    • Serious Personal Injuries
    • Sexual Harassment
    • Injuries To Children
    • Dangerous Products
    • Additional Services
  • Case Settlements
    • Customer Testimonials
  • Areas We Serve
  • Blog
  • Contact

Blog

New York Legal Blog
February 11, 2014  |  By admin

Criticism of Cuomo’s Certificate of Merit Law & The Real Effects It Will Have

Foreclosure defense attorneys and the general New York media alike have praised Governor Cuomo for enacting a bill that will require lenders’ lawyers to file certificates of merit at the commencement of an action (click here for the complete language of the Act). Much like the October 2010 Order of Chief Judge Jonathan Lippmann (often referred to as the “OCA Affidavit/Affirmation”), the new law will certainly pressure plaintiffs and their counsels to exercise heightened discretion when reviewing the merits and standing of a potential foreclosure.  But, the consensus opinion that this law has helped countless homeowners by “closing a loophole” is misplaced.

Yes, there are a number of foreclosure cases in New York that remain in “shadow dockets”- court calendars specifically held for cases in which an action was commenced, but a request for judicial intervention (RJI) was never filed. The factor that all those championing this law have forgotten to mention  is that an RJI can be filed by either party, meaning that a defendant is never “trapped” by the system as the proponents suggest. Arguing that the legislative intent is to help those people that have remained in shadow docket limbo for multiple years is bogus. At any point during that time, the homeowner could have paid the fee to file an RJI and had his/her opportunity to negotiate a loan modification or other settlement under court supervision.

The fact that the legislative body pats itself on the back for “speeding up” foreclosures and saving homeowners from “fees and interest adding up” is another display of political smoke and mirrors. Requiring certifications at the time of filing does not necessarily “speed up” foreclosures. In some instances, it will certainly reduce the amount of time the foreclosure case is open, but if a foreclosing lender simply waits multiple years before commencing, how has that helped save the homeowner? Does interest magically stop accruing?

By the same token, it is overreaching to assume that homeowners will be in better position to modify as a result of this law. While a more expeditious entrance into the conference part is possible, it can never be guaranteed due to the statute of limitations-the fact that a foreclosing lender has six years from acceleration to commence an action.

While the legislature’s attempts to improve the foreclosure crisis are noble, the desired results can be achieved by other means. For instance, if the goal is to speed up the foreclosure process while in the court system, one would think that improving the efficiency of the court’s foreclosure parts/systems would be a good start. It’s telling that my firm currently has several unopposed motions pending a Judge’s decision since as far back as December 2012.  Are we expected to believe that the elimination of shadow dockets will lead to a robust increase in court expediency and efficiency?

Outside of the criticisms of the law’s intent and in light of the upcoming August 30th effective date, it’s prudent to review two other less-discussed facets of the law: first, it nullifies CPLR 3015(d) (“unless specifically denied in the pleadings, each signature on a negotiable instrument is admitted”) with respect to unrepresented defendants; second, it requires plaintiffs to file proof of service within 20 days of service on the defendant, regardless of the method of service. The latter will accomplish the goal of getting homeowners into a settlement conference within 80 days or less from the date service is effectuated.

The biggest potential effect that plaintiffs must prepare for pertains to a defendant’s use of the defense of standing. Currently, with a few exceptions, Judges will not permit a standing defense to be raised once the defendant’s time to answer has expired. In light of this new law, plaintiffs must now, essentially, certify that they have standing to commence. Thus, even if a defendant has waived his right to a standing defense, it’s likely many defendants and defense attorneys will raise this defense indirectly by asserting that plaintiff’s certifications were improper.

Overall, the meaty part of the law will essentially simply supplant the OCA Affidavit/Affirmation with a more rigid requirement. It also requires that a copy of the note, mortgage, assignments, etc. be included with the certification if not otherwise provided in the complaint. Good plaintiff attorneys have already been submitting all the 3408(e) docs along with their complaints, but it’s conceivable that this will rectify the poor habits of those who have been willing to commence actions without having the requisite proof from their clients.

Written By: Ralph Vartolo, Esq.

Previous StoryPlaintiff’s Right to Assign the Winning Bid at a Foreclosure Auction
Next StoryA Practical Interpretation of Cuomo’s New Foreclosure Certificate of Merit Act

Related Articles

  • A Good Faith Notice Before Moving For Default
  • The Legalities of Short-Term Rentals in NYC

CATEGORIES

  • Bicycle Accidents (13)
  • Injuries (7)
  • Law (241)
  • Malpractice (6)
  • Medical Related (9)
  • Motor Vehcle Accidents (39)
  • Personal Injury (83)
  • Personal Injury Lawyer Blog (1)
  • Personal Injury Questions (6)
  • Product Liability (2)
  • Public Transportation Accidents (3)
  • Pulvers & Thompson LLP (3)
  • Real Estate Blog (2)
  • Real Estate Blog – Adam Friedman (8)
  • Real Estate Blog – Maria Cheung (1)
  • Real Estate Law (13)
  • Settlements & Verdicts (1)
  • Tort Law (Personal Injury) (8)
  • Truck accident (9)
  • Uncategorized (2)
  • Vehicle Related (7)
  • Work Related Accidents (21)

ARCHIVES

  • February 2021 (3)
  • December 2020 (3)
  • November 2020 (3)
  • October 2020 (3)
  • September 2020 (3)
  • August 2020 (3)
  • July 2020 (3)
  • June 2020 (3)
  • May 2020 (1)
  • April 2020 (4)
  • March 2020 (72)
  • February 2020 (31)
  • January 2020 (14)
  • December 2019 (59)
  • November 2019 (66)
  • October 2019 (3)
  • September 2019 (3)
  • August 2019 (3)
  • July 2019 (3)
  • June 2019 (3)
  • May 2019 (3)
  • April 2019 (6)
  • February 2019 (2)
  • January 2019 (4)
  • February 2018 (1)
  • January 2018 (3)
  • December 2017 (1)
  • November 2017 (1)
  • October 2017 (2)
  • September 2017 (3)
  • August 2017 (1)
  • July 2017 (1)
  • June 2017 (2)
  • May 2017 (1)
  • April 2017 (4)
  • March 2017 (1)
  • February 2017 (1)
  • January 2017 (2)
  • June 2015 (1)
  • May 2015 (6)
  • April 2015 (5)
  • November 2014 (4)
  • October 2014 (2)
  • September 2014 (8)
  • August 2014 (9)
  • July 2014 (10)
  • June 2014 (6)
  • May 2014 (10)
  • April 2014 (6)
  • March 2014 (1)
  • February 2014 (15)
  • January 2014 (2)
  • December 2013 (3)
  • November 2013 (3)
  • October 2013 (12)
  • September 2013 (3)
  • August 2013 (4)
  • July 2013 (1)
  • June 2013 (10)

ABOUT US

Pulvers, Pulvers & Thompson, L.L.P., is a client-centric, results driven law firm with a focus on personal injury representation. With happy clients all over Greater New York and a strong record of success protecting their interests, we are confident that we can help you pursue the justice and compensation you need after a serious injury.

Habla Español

Visit Us

New York Office
950 3rd Ave #1100
New York, NY 10022

Queens Office
34-38 Bell Blvd, 3rd Fl
Bayside, New York 11361
(by appointment only)

Long Island Office
425 Broadhollow Road
Melville, New York 11747
(by appointment only)

Call Us

New York
347-354-4676

Westchester
347-354-4676

Long Island
347-354-4676

Fax
212-355-9000

ABOUT US

Pulvers, Pulvers & Thompson, L.L.P., is a client-centric, results driven law firm with a focus on personal injury representation. With happy clients all over Greater New York and a strong record of success protecting their interests, we are confident that we can help you pursue the justice and compensation you need after a serious injury.

Habla Español

Pulvers, Pulvers, Thompson L.L.P.
  • Home
  • About
  • Our Legal Services
  • Case Settlements
  • Areas We Serve
  • Blog
  • Contact

Copyright © Pulvers Thompson - All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Web design by The Rusty Pixel.