Law Offices of Robert E. Brown, P.C.
In LaSalle Bank, N.A. v. Pace, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op 21070, Judge Thomas of Whelan, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, allows a foreclosure action to proceed notwithstanding the fact that the foreclosing bank failed to comply with the October 20, 2010, Administrative Order [#548-10] issued by Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau. The Administrative Order, which has gotten much attention by foreclosure practitioners, requires counsel for the foreclosing banks to verify the accuracy of documents filed in support of residential foreclosure actions.
Judge Whelan opines that the Administrative Order is not binding on him based on New York State constitutional grounds. His Honor writes,
The Administrative Order at issue and the recent amendment of 22 NYCRR 202.12-a, by the addition of subparagraph (f), which purports to establish the continuing authority of the Chief Administrative Judge to require the affirmations and affidavits that are the subject of the October 20, 2010 Administrative Order, are not administrative in nature, as they are not aimed at supervising the administration and operation of the Unified Court System or at the efficient and orderly transaction of business in the trial courts (see Judiciary Law § 211; 212; 22 NYCRR 80.1[b]). They are, instead, "legislative" in nature, as their provisions purport to regulate practice and procedure in the courts (see NY Const. Art. VI, § 30; Judiciary Law § 212[d]). The legislative nature of the Administrative Order and the amendment of 22 NYCRR 202.12-a(f) are apparent even upon a most cursory review of their terms, as they impose additional, substantive requirements upon a plaintiff seeking the remedy of foreclosure that is not contemplated by the statutes which now regulate foreclosure actions (see RPAPL Article 13, CPLR 3408 and the Laws of 2009 Ch. 507 §§ 1,3,5,6,9,10,10-a)(Emphasis supplied).
Accordingly, Judge Whelan holds:
[T]his court finds that Administrative Order numbered 548-10 and the newly added subparagraph (f) to court rule 202.12-a, exceed the rule making authority of the Chief Administrative Judge, in her capacity as chief administrator of the courts. (Emphasis supplied).
Thankfully, Judge Whelan's decision is not binding authority on other judges. In my opinion--and I don't foresee myself practicing in Suffolk any time soon, so I can be blunt--this is a poor decision and appears to be nothing more that an elaborate rationalization for a deep-seated ideological bias favoring banks. His decision does a disservice to homeowners, and wholly ignores the rampant documentary irregularities that occur in so many foreclosures. Instead, Judge Whelan concerns himself with the "chilling effect upon [his] court's adjudicatory authority and powers to determine issues raised in pending mortgage foreclosure actions duly assigned to it."
I'd like to hear from the Little Judge from Brooklyn on this one.
how can whelan be allowed to hear forclosuresReplyDelete
being that he is bias ?
Many judges throughout the state find against homeowners on a regular basis. How they determine a case has no bearing on their position as a judge. If the judge is wrong and is appealed, the decision is reversed.ReplyDelete
Whelan is Bias and has made himself a party to the fraud.ReplyDelete
Nice that I came across your blog as at the moment I'm interested in statistics among lawyers if they use in their practice such thing as dataroom services ?ReplyDelete
basically Whelan is a flunky looking to be famous the only way for a flunkie to get famous is to commit crimesReplyDelete
Judge has trouble reading motion's do to Brain cancer, since 2014 yet under cancer therapy and syntrophic drug's he still work's for the Lobbyist of the bank's and hangs at Oheka.ReplyDelete
Hello. Today we will talk about one fascinating and interesting casino sapid new mobile casino here you will like the design of the kind of gamesReplyDelete