Skip to main content

See also:

Queens foreclosure attorney obtains an injunction against Apple Bank for Savings

Queens foreclosure attorney Nicholas Harris defeats Apple Bank in Order to Show Cause
Queens foreclosure attorney Nicholas Harris defeats Apple Bank in Order to Show Cause
Dan Harris

In an all too familiar scenario another intransigent lender with bogus paperwork refuses to modify a loan and burns through a borrower’s equity by engaging in extensive litigation based on paperwork that has been determined to be dubious.

On June 6, 2014 Nicholas Harris, Esq. stood in a Brooklyn courtroom in front of the Honorable Wayne P. Saitta, Justice of the Supreme Court in Kings County, New York. The genesis of this hearing was an Emergency Order to Show Cause brought on by an aggressive court appointed receiver who was attempting to force a homeowner in foreclosure to accept repair bills from a contractor and leases with tenants the homeowner did not know and had not meant.

A week earlier motions were submitted where the lender Apple Bank had made a motion to re-argue a decision by Justice Saittia wherein he had denied Apple’s Motion for a Summary Judgment because the bank failed to prove that they owned the note and mortgage. There is currently a Motion to Dismiss this case pending a decision from Judge Saitta.

The foreclosure case was commenced in October of 2010 on a mortgage that was originated by Wells Fargo and then assigned and sold numerous times. The law office of Brian McCaffrey took over the case from a prior attorney who came to McCaffrey for assistance when Apple filed their Motion for Summary Judgment.

McCaffrey’s firm was successful in showing the Court that the documents used by Apple were dubious and after extensive motion practice and numerous oral argument hearings Judge Saittia ruled that McCaffrey had successfully raised enough of an issue that Apple could not prevail on its Motion for Summary Judgment.

According to Nicholas Harris an attorney in McCaffrey’s office, Apple Bank has been absolutely intransigent due to equity in the property which they apparently want to get their hands on. Instead of offering the borrower a loan modification during the course of this 4 year battle Apple has taken to aggressive litigation tactics and billed the borrower for legal work.

The latest attempts by Apple include a Motion to Re-argue consisting of more than 2,500 pages of arguments and exhibits and an attempt to bring a contractor into the property to make unnecessary repairs and have a court appointed receiver lease empty units.

The borrower has the property up for sale and was unable to show the 4 unit building because of tenants who would not cooperate or allow access. Now that the units are all vacant Apple has attempted to fill them again in what can only be deemed as an attempt to block the sale of the property and further milk the equity out of the property.

Nicholas Harris, Esq. is preparing for another hearing on June 19, 2014 where “Judge Saittia will hear arguments on whether or not to issue an order restraining Apple and the receiver from attempting to rent units pending the outcome of the pending motion to dismiss the case.”

The case is Apple Bank v Russell Bullock Kings County Index: 025590/2010