There are many mortgage calculators available online. One that I like in particular is at www.navyfederal.org/calcs/mortgage-calculator.php. This one, like others, will calcualate your payment based on term, principal and interest rate. You can also figure in taxes and insurance if you want.

What makes this online mortgage calculator especially useful is the ability to vary any or all of the numbers using slider bars. Change the rate, the amount, the monthly payment - in any combination - and see the results immediately.

Section 3408 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs how settlement conferences are run in foreclosure cases. Last year the state legislature made some important changes that benefit homeowners. These changes took effect last month and will remain in force until at least February 13, 2020.
 
Here is a cheat-sheet on how the law applies, and how it may affect you if you are in foreclosure.
 

• Applies to residential foreclosure actions involving a home loan (defined in RPAPL 1304) where defendant resides in the subject property.
• Plaintiff required to file proof of service within 20 days of service. Court required to hold conference within 60 days after proof of service is filed.
• Purpose of conference: Settlement discussions for purposes including but not limited to:
  • Determining whether the parties can reach a mutually agreeable resolution to help defendants avoid losing their home.
  • Evaluating potential modification of monthly payments or amount owed.
  • Explore other workout options such as loan modification, short sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or any other loss mitigation option.
  • Whatever other purposes the court deems appropriate.
• At initial conference, any defendant appearing pro se shall be deemed to have made a motion to proceed as a poor person under CPLR 1101. Court may appoint counsel for pro se defendant under CPLR 1102(a). If it does, conference must be adjourned for appearance of counsel. [3408(b).]
• Mechanics of the conference. [3408(c)]
  • Plaintiff and defendant shall appear in person or by counsel.
  • Each party’s representative shall be authorized to dispose of the case.
  • If defendant is pro se, court must advise defendant of the nature of the action and his rights and responsibilities as a defendant.
  • Court may permit plaintiff’s representative or the defendant to attend by phone or video-conference.
• What happens when the RJI is filed. [3408(d) and (e)]
  • Court must send copy of RJI or send defendant’s name & contact info to a housing counseling agency on a list designated by DHCR.
    • Agency must use information to make homeowner aware of housing counseling and available foreclosure prevention services and options.
  • Court must promptly send notice of conference date/time purpose and what information the parties must bring.
  • Plaintiff is required to bring (this is not an exhaustive list):
    • Payment history
    • Itemization of the amounts needed to cure and pay off the loan
    • The mortgage and note or copies of the same
    • Standard application forms
    • A description of loss mitigation options, which may be available
    • Any other documents required by the judge.
  • If plaintiff is not the owner of the mortgage and note, plaintiff must provide the name, address and phone number of the legal owner of the mortgage and note.
  • If lender or servicing agent has evaluated or is evaluating eligibility for loan modification programs or other loss mitigation options, in addition to the documents listed above, plaintiff must also bring:
    • Summary of the status of the evaluation
    • List of outstanding items (if any) required from the borrower to complete any modification application
    • Expected date of completion of the evaluation
    • If modification was denied, plaintiff must also bring:
      • Denial letter or other document explaining the reason for denial.
      • Data input fields and values used in net present value evaluation.
      • If modification was denied on the basis of an investor restriction, plaintiff must also bring documentary evidence which provides the basis for the denial, such as a pooling and servicing agreement.
  • Defendant must bring documents to the conference, including but not limited to:
    • Information on current income tax returns
    • Expenses
    • Property taxes
    • Previously submitted applications for loss mitigation
    • Benefits information
    • Rental agreements or proof of rental income
    • Any other documentation relevant to the proceeding required by the judge.
• Good faith. [3408(f)]
  • Both sides must negotiate in good faith to reach mutually agreeable resolution, which may be loan modification, short sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or any other loss mitigation, if possible.
  • Factors in deciding good faith:
    • Compliance with 3408, court rules, court orders, and directives pertaining to settlement conference process.
    • Compliance with mortgage servicing laws, rules, regulations, investor directives, and loss mitigation standards or options concerning loan modifications, short sales, and deeds in lieu of foreclosure.
    • Conduct consistent with efforts to reach a mutually agreeable resolution. This includes, but is not limited to:
      • Avoiding unreasonable delay.
      • Appearing at the settlement conference with authority to fully dispose of the case.
      • Avoiding prosecution of the foreclosure action while loss mitigation applications are pending.
      • Providing accurate information to the court and parties.
    • Mere failure to make or accept an offer is sufficient to establish failure to negotiate in good faith.
• Discontinuance. [3408(g)]
  • Plaintiff must file a notice of discontinuance and vacate lis pendens within 90 days after settlement agreement or loan modification is fully executed.
• No fees to borrower for conference. [3408(h)]
  • Bank cannot require homeowner to make payment for any cost, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees, for appearing at settlement conferences.
• Bad-faith.
  • If court determines that a party failed to negotiate in good faith, court can issue order, on motion or sua sponte, finding bad faith. A referee may hear and report findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning any party’s failure to negotiate in good faith and remedies. [3408(i)]
  • Remedies for bank bad faith [3408(j)]:
    • Tolling of interest, costs, and fees during any undue delay caused by the plaintiff. This is the minimum the court must do. Court may also impose one or more of the following:
      • Compel production of any documents requested by the court during the settlement conference.
      • Impose a civil penalty payable to the state that is sufficient to deter repetition of the conduct, up to $25,000.
      • Award actual damages, fees, including attorney fees and expenses to the defendant.
      •  Award any other relief that the court deems just and proper.
  • Remedies for defendant’s bad faith. [3408(k)]
    • Remove case from conference calendar.
    • Court must take into account equitable factors including, but not limited to, whether the defendant was represented by counsel.
• Answering the complaint: 3408(l) and (m).
  • At the first settlement conference, if the defendant has not filed an answer yet, the court shall:
    • Advise defendant of the requirement to answer the complaint;
    • Explain what is required to answer a complaint in court;
    • Advise that if an answer is not served, the ability to contest the foreclosure action and assert defenses may be lost; and
    • Provide information about available resources for foreclosure prevention assistance.
    • The court shall also give the defendant a copy of the Consumer Bill of Rights provided for in RPAPL 1303.
    • A defendant who appears at the settlement conference but who failed to file a timely answer shall be presumed to have a reasonable excuse for the default and shall be permitted to serve and file an answer, without any substantive defenses deemed to have been waived within 30 days of the first conference.
    • The default shall be deemed vacated upon filing an answer.
• Motion practice [3408(n)]
  • Any motions by either side shall be held in abeyance while the conference process is ongoing, except for motions concerning compliance with this rule and its implementing rules.

I don’t usually write about landlord-tenant issues, but today’s Law Journal mentions a case that is worth writing about.

A landlord brought a holdover proceeding against a tenant who was arrested and charged with the crime of reckless endangerment. NYPD observed the tenant, acting alone, setting fire to clothing piled in the apartment’s bathtub. The tenant lit the fire and let it burn, with the nearby gas oven and stove both turned on.

The housing court judge, in her infinite wisdom, dismissed the landlord’s case. Why? Because the landlord picked the wrong legal theory to support eviction. The landlord claimed that the tenant, by creating a situation that could have caused an explosion or burned down the building, created a nuisance.

The judge said that recklessly setting your apartment on fire is not a nuisance because in order to prove a nuisance, you must prove a series of bad or inappropriate acts. One incident, no matter how stupid or dangerous on the tenant’s part, does not a nuisance prove.

According to this judge, the landlord screwed up by claiming nuisance when he should have claimed that the tenant breached a substantial obligation of the lease by committing an affirmative act of waste.

In New York civil practice, there is a general rule holding that when you file a legal complaint, the facts are the most important thing, rather than the “legal theory” you apply to those facts. For example, if you file a complaint claiming that the defendant deliberately made false statements to you about something important, and if you are specific about the what, when, who and where of the matter, then most courts will say that your complaint makes out a claim of fraud – even if you don’t identify your claim as one for fraud.
Not so for this Manhattan housing court judge, who apparently is willing to let tenants get away with setting fires in their apartments with gas ovens and stoves burning away.

Apartment owners and residents beware, and make sure your fire and tenant’s insurance is paid up.

Not every apartment in Brooklyn is insanely expensive. There is "affordable housing", but not everyone will qualify, and you might have to spend significant energy on doing paperwork and stroking The Bureaucracy.

​Here are two links to articles on two rental opportunities. One is in Bushwick, for as little as $519/month. The other is in Clinton Hill, Ocean Hill and Brownsville, and offers apartments for as little as $689/month.

The NYC Council passed legislation earlier this year requiring the NYC Dept of Finance (DOF) to give property owners amnesty as to outstanding judgments entered in the Environmental Control Board (ECB). If the requirements are met, the property owner is free from default penalties and interest. Here are the requirements:

• The ECB judgment was filed prior to 6/12/2016.
• The owner resolves the judgment between 9/12/2016 and 12/12/2016.
• All judgments listed on the Department of Finance's website for the property are resolved, including monetary fines and all work required to clear the violations that resulted in a judgment.

For more information see the NYC DOF's amnesty page.
​

It's easy to understand how to steal a car or a diamond ring. But a house? That's a little harder to wrap one's head around. Yet every day we see or hear reports of con artists attempting to steal people’s homes and properties. This is a particularly bad problem in Brooklyn because real estate prices make the crime very attractive. Most of the victims are elderly, or out-of-town members of a deceased owner’s family.
 
Today's New York Law Journal reports that one Carl Smith of Brooklyn has just been sentenced to prison time for stealing multiple properties. Let's look at what he did, and how you can protect yourself from scams like this.
 
According to Brooklyn District Attorney Ken Thompson, “This defendant shamefully stole houses and other property from their rightful owners by using forged documents, engaging in deceit and committing outright fraud. He did so solely to exploit the lucrative real estate market in Brooklyn,”
 
Smith, 50 years old, stole a Fort Greene Brownstone at 139 Vanderbilt Avenue, between Myrtle and Park Avenues by forging, back-dating and filing a fraudulent deed. He looked up the prior owner and found her death record. All of that is public information. Smith did the same thing with two Bedford-Stuyvesant properties at 45 Lewis Avenue and 64 Hart Street. He actually sold one of the properties twice, to two different buyers.
 
All this happened in 2011 and 2013, but Smith had done this before. In 2003 he used the same techniques to steal another Bed-Stuy property at 543 Lexington Avenue. He couldn't evict the tenants, though, and he was never prosecuted.
 
Smith finally got caught because he couldn't produce clear title histories when he attempted to close on the fraudulent sales. To make matters worse, he pretended to be an attorney for the owners.
 
Smith was convicted of grand larceny, criminal possession of forged instruments and unlawful practice of law. The judge sentenced him nine to eighteen years in prison.
 
So how can you protect yourself from scams like this? Sign up for New York City's free Recorded Document Notification Program. Once you sign up, you will get an email any time someone files a deed or other document against your property. If the filing is genuine, you don't have to do anything more. But if the filing is fraudulent, you can take action before any damage is done.


You can access the Document Notification Program on our firm's website, www.LevyNau.com. Click on the Links tab and scroll down to the Safeguard Your Property Title button.
 
As always, come in, call of click for help or more information. We’re here for you.

A disturbing decision was just issued by the Appellate Division of New York’s Supreme Court. In an effort to return an already-evicted tenant to his apartment, the court held, in effect, that the landlord was required to lend the tenant money at zero interest.

The case, Lafayette Boynton Housing Corp. v. Pickett, involved a disabled man subsisting on social security. He had lived in his Bronx apartment for some 30 years. In 2011 the landlord started eviction proceedings for non-payment of rent. At that time the tenant owed $5,200 in arrears.

Over the next two years the tenant and his legal aid attorney he convinced a housing court judge to stay the warrant of eviction seven different times, based on promises to pay the arrears. By the time the tenant paid any arrears, however, he owed even more, because he was not paying his current rent each month. So the arrears kept climbing higher, and the promises to pay kept coming.

Finally, in 2013 the housing court refused to give the tenant any more chances, and the eviction went forward. A full month after the tenant was out of the apartment, he got additional public assistance and grant money and paid the judgment amount to the landlord. The full amount at that time, including the landlord’s legal fees, was $14,000.

Based on that payment, the housing court ordered the landlord to take the tenant back and to reinstate him into his old apartment. The Appellate Division upheld the lower court, noting that the tenant had made a good faith attempt to cure the arrears, and that it wasn’t the tenant’s fault that couldn’t pay up on time. It is not clear from the decision whose fault the judges thought it was.

Justice David Saxe, in a written dissenting opinion, said that the court’s majority decision “forces landlords to serve as de facto no-interest lenders to low-income tenants.” Justice Saxe also suggested that the housing court’s decision to give the tenant relief even after the warrant of eviction was executed went beyond the authority given by the applicable law (Section 749(3) of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, which only allows relief from eviction “for good cause shown” before the warrant of eviction is executed.)

Maybe this decision was inevitable. Anyone and everyone would want to help an elderly disabled person living on social security. But there is great danger in letting emotion go too far in applying the law. The law is supposed to be objective and impartial. Emotion is never objective or impartial. Do we want a society where rules are applied evenly and predictably? Or do we want a society where rules depend on how our judges, executives and police feel when they get up in the morning? All I can do is ask the question.