JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Kocak

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Kocak

2024 NY Slip Op 33190(U)

September 9, 2024

Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: Index No. 850209/2022

Judge: Francis A. Kahn III

Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York

State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official

publication.

[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2024 03 :46 PM] INDEX NO. 850 2 09/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: HON. FRANCIS A. KAHN, Ill PART 32

Justice

----------------------------------------------X

INDEX NO. 850209/2022

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

MOTION DATE

Plaintiff,

MOTION SEQ. NO. 001

- V -

NACIYE KOCAK, THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 432

PARK CONDOMINIUM, JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE SAID

NAMES BEING FICTITIOUS, IT BEING THE INTENTION

DECISION + ORDER ON

OF PLAINTIFF TO DESIGNATE ANY AND ALL

OCCUPANTS OF PREMISES BEING FORECLOSED MOTION

HEREIN

Defendant.

------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 38, 39, 40, 41, 42,

43,44,45,46,47,48,49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69

were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

Upon the foregoing documents, the motion is determined as follows:

In this action Plaintiff seeks to foreclose on a mortgage encumbering residential real property

located at 432 Park Avenue, Unit 81A, New York, New York. The mortgage, dated September 14,

2016, was given by Defendant Naciye Kocak ("Kocak") to Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA. The

mortgage secures a loan with an original principal amount of $11,412,500.00 and is evidenced by a note

the same date as the mortgage. Plaintiff commenced this action alleging inter alia that Defendant Kocak

defaulted in repayment of the loan on or about November 1, 2021. Kocak answered and pled sixteen

affirmative defenses, including lack of standing, failure to comply with RP APL §§ 1304 and 1306 as

well as failure to serve a contractual pre-foreclosure notice. Now, Plaintiff moves for summary

judgment against Kocak, to strike the answer and affirmative defenses, a default judgment against the

non-appearing Defendants, an order of reference and to amend the caption. Kocak opposes the motion.

In moving for summary judgment, Plaintiff was required to establish prima facie entitlement to

judgment as a matter of law though proof of the mortgage, the note, and evidence of Defendants' default

in repayment (see US Bank, NA. v James, 180 AD3d 594 [1 st Dept 2020]; Bank ofNYv Knowles, 151

AD3d 596 [1 st Dept 2017]; Fortress Credit Corp. v Hudson Yards, LLC, 78 AD3d 577 [1 st Dept 201 0]).

Also, based on the affirmative defenses pied, Plaintiff was required to demonstrate, primafacie, its

standing (see eg Wells Fargo Bank, NA. v Tricario, 180 AD3d 848 [2 nd Dept 2020]), its strict

compliance with RPAPL §§1304 and 1306 (see US Bank, NA v Nathan, 173 AD3d 1112 [2d Dept

2019]; HSBC Bank USA, NA. v Bermudez, 175 AD3d 667,669 [2d Dept 2019]) as well as its substantial

compliance with the requisites under paragraph 22 of the mortgage (see eg Wells Fargo Bank, NA. v

McKenzie, 186 AD3d 1582, 1584 [2d Dept 2020]).

850209/2022 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs. KOCAK, NACIYE ET AL Page 1 of 7

Motion No. 001

1 of 7

[* 1]

[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2024 03:46 P~ INDEX NO. 850209/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024

Proof supporting a prima facie case on a motion for summary judgment must be in admissible

form (see CPLR §3212[b]; Tri-State Loan Acquisitions III, LLC v Litkowski, 172 AD3d 780 [1 st Dept

2019]). A plaintiff may rely on evidence from persons with personal knowledge of the facts, documents

in admissible form and/or persons with knowledge derived from produced admissible records (see eg

U.S. Bank NA. v Moulton, 179 AD3d 734, 738 [2d Dept 2020]). No particular set of business records

must be proffered, as long as the admissibility requirements of CPLR 4518[a] are fulfilled and the

records evince the facts for which they are relied upon (see eg Citigroup v Kopelowitz, 14 7 AD3d 1014,

1015 [2d Dept 2017]).

Plaintiffs motion was supported by an affidavit from Gary Brunton ("Brunton"), a Vice

President-Document Execution for Plaintiff. Clemens avers that Plaintiff is the servicer of the loan, that

his submission was based upon a review of Plaintiffs records and knowledge of its record keeping

practices. Brunton' s affidavit laid a proper foundation for the admission of the records of Plaintiff into

evidence under CPLR §4518 by sufficiently showing that the records Plaintiff relied upon "reflect[ed] a

routine, regularly conducted business activity, and that it be needed and relied on in the performance of

functions of the business'', "that the record [was] made pursuant to established procedures for the

routine, habitual, systematic making of such a record" and "that the record [was] made at or about the

time of the event being recorded" (Bank of NY Mellon v Gordon, 171 AD3d 197, 204 [2d Dept 2019];

see also Bank ofAm v Brannon, 156 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2017]). Further, annexed to the motion were all

the records referenced by Brunton (cf Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Kirschenbaum, 187 AD3d 569

[1 st Dept 2020]).

As to the note and mortgage, these documents were referenced by Brunton and annexed to his

affidavit (cf 938 St. Nicholas Ave. Lender LLC v 936-938 Cl(!Jcrest Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 218 AD3d

417 [l51 Dept 2023]). As such, proof of the loan documents was established in the first instance. As to

Defendants' default, it "is established by (1) an admission made in response to a notice to admit, (2) an

affidavit from a person having personal knowledge of the facts, or (3) other evidence in admissible

form" (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v McGann, 183 AD3d 700, 702 [2d Dept 2020]). Brunton's

review of the attached records evidenced mortgagor's default in repayment under the note (see eg ING

Real Estate Fin. (USA) LLC v Park Ave. Hotel Acquisition, LLC, 89 AD3d 506 [1 st Dept 2011]; see also

Bank of NY v Knowles, supra; Fortress Credit Corp. v Hudson Yards, LLC, supra).

As to standing in a foreclosure action, it is established in one of three ways: [l] direct privity

between mortgagor and mortgagee, [2] physical possession of the note prior to commencement of the

action that contains an indorsement in blank or bears a special indorsement payable to the order of the

plaintiff either on its face or by allonge, and [3] assignment of the note to Plaintiff prior to

commencement of the action (see eg Wells Fargo Bank, NA. v Tricario, 180 AD3d 848 [2d Dept 2020];

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Ostiguy, 127 AD3d 1375 [3d Dept 2015]). Here, since Plaintiff was lender

when the note and mortgage were given, it was in direct privity with the mortgagor when the action was

commenced and, therefore, unquestionably had standing (see generally Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy.,

FSB v Matamoro, 200 AD3d 79, 90-91 [2d Dept 2021]).

Plaintiff was also required to proffer "sufficient evidence demonstrating the absence of material

issues as to its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304" (Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Weisblum, 85 AD3d

95, 106 [2d Dept 2011]). As to the contractual pre-foreclosure notice, paragraph 22 of the mortgage, a

ubiquitous provision in residential mortgages, provides that prior to acceleration of the note, the lender

must send a notice containing the information specified in paragraph 22 [b] [ 1] - [6] in the manner

described in paragraph 15 of the mortgage. That section provides that all notices must be in writing and

850209/2022 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs. KOCAK, NACIYE ET AL Page 2 of 7

Motion No. 001

2 of 7

[* 2]

[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2024 03:46 P~ INDEX NO. 850209/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024

"is considered given to [Mortgagor] when mailed by first class mail or when actually delivered to my

notice address if sent by other means ... The notice address is the address of the Property unless I give

notice to Lender of a different address".

While RP APL § 1304 does not specify the proof necessary to demonstrate compliance therewith,

the Court of Appeals has "has long recognized a party can establish that a notice or other document was

sent through evidence of actual mailing ... or ... by proof of a sender's routine business practice with

respect to the creation, addressing, and mailing of documents of that nature" (Cit Bank NA. v Schiffman,

36 NY3d 550, 556 [2020][intemal citations omitted]). Proof of actual mailing may be shown with an

affidavit of mailing or domestic return receipts with attendant signatures (see eg US Bank v Zientek, 192

AD3d 1189, 1191 [2d Dept 2021]). Evidence of a satisfactory office practice can raise a presumption

that the required notice was sent and received by the projected addressee ( Cit Bank NA. v Schfffman,

supra). A practice giving rise to the presumption "must be geared so as to ensure the likelihood that

[the] notice ... is always properly addressed and mailed" (Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray, 46 NY2d 828, 830

[ 1978]) and can be demonstrated via an affiant who explains "among other things, how the notices and

envelopes were generated, posted and sealed, as well as how the mail was transmitted to the postal

service" (Cit Bank NA. v Schiffman, supra). Proof from a person with "personal knowledge of the

practices utilized by the [sender] at the time of the alleged mailing" is sufficient (Preferred Mut. Ins. Co.

v Donnelly, 22 NY3d 1169, 1170 [2014]; see also Citibank, NA. v Conti-Scheurer, 172 AD3d 17, 21

[2d Dept 2019][intemal quotation marks omitted]). An affidavit from the person who performed the

mailing is not necessary (see Bassuk v Steinberg, 58 NY2d 916, 919 [1983]).

Regarding the mailing of these notices, Plaintiff submitted an affidavit from Karla Baxter

("Baxter") a Vice President-Document Execution of Plaintiff. Baxter attested to their personal

knowledge of Plaintiffs standard mailing procedure, described the procedure in adequate detail and

attached both Plaintiffs records and those from the United States Postal Service (see United States Bank

Trust, NA. v Mehl, 195 AD3d 1054 [2d Dept 2021]; Citimortgage, Inc. v Ustick, 188 AD3d 793, 794

[2d Dept 2020]). Accordingly, Plaintiff demonstrated primafacie its strict compliance with RP APL

§ 1304. Likewise, this evidence also demonstrated Plaintiffs substantial compliance with the contractual

pre-foreclosure notice required by the mortgage. Compliance with RPAPL §1306 was shown by

submitting a copy of a proof of filing statement from the New York State Department of Financial

Services (see United States Bank Trust, NA. v Mehl, supra at 1056) and RP APL § 1303 via the affidavit

of Plaintiffs process server (see HSBC Bank USA, NA. v Oz can, 154 AD3d 822 [2d Dept 2017]).

In opposition, Defendants' claim the motion is defective because a complete copy of the

pleadings were not annexed thereto is without merit "as the pleadings were filed electronically and thus

were available to the parties and the court" (Studio A Showroom, LLC, v Yoon, 99 AD3d 632 [ l st Dept

2012]; see also Galpern v Air Chefs, L. L. C., 180 AD3d 50 l [ l st Dept 2020]). The argument that

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate all the elements of a cause of action for foreclosure is without merit. The

affidavit and proffered business documents were all in admissible form. The argument that the

endorsement in blank on the note raises material issues of fact as to possession of same is also

unavailing. "Attachment of the note to the complaint was sufficient to establish possession" ( U.S. Bank

NA. v Russell, 186 AD3d 1181 [151 Dept 2020]). Under the circumstances "[t]here is simply no

requirement that an entity ... must establish how it came into possession of that instrument" (JPMorgan

Chase Bank, NA v Weinberger, 142 AD3d 643,645 [2d Dept 2016]). Plaintiff was not obliged to

produce the original note and mortgage to establish its prima facie case in this context (see Aurora Loan

Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355,365 [2015]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Auguste, 185 AD3d

657, 659 [2d Dept 2020]).

850209/2022 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs. KOCAK, NACIYE ET AL Page 3 of 7

Motion No. 001

[* 3] 3 of 7

[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2024 03:46 P~ INDEX NO. 850209/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024

Regarding reformation of the mortgage, '" [w]here there is no mistake about the agreement and

the only mistake alleged is in the reduction of that agreement to writing, such mistake of the scrivener,

or of either party, no matter how it occurred, may be corrected"' (Harris v Uhlendorf, 24 NY2d 463,467

[1969], citing Born v Schrenkeisen, 110 NY 55, 59 [1888)). Therefore, '"[a] party seeking reformation

of a contract by reason of mistake must establish, with clear and convincing evidence, that the contract

was executed under mutual mistake or a unilateral mistake induced by the other party's fraudulent

misrepresentation"' (see Wells Fargo Bank, NA. v Zolotnitsky, 195 AD3d 659,661 [2d Dept 2021],

citing Yu Han Young v Chiu, 49 AD3d 535, 536 [2d Dept 2008)). In support of the motion, Plaintiff

demonstrate that the incorrect "metes and bounds" description was merely a "scrivener's error", and its

reformation would not prejudice Defendant (see eg Bank ofAm., NA. v Pennicooke, 186 AD3d 545 [2d

Dept 2020)).

Defendant is correct that "[a] cause of action seeking reformation of an instrument on the ground

of mistake, including an alleged scrivener's error, is governed by the six-year statute of limitations

pursuant to CPLR 213 (6), which begins to run on the date the mistake was made" (Lopez v Lopez, 133

AD3d 722, 723 [2d Dept 2015)). In this case, the mortgage was executed on September 14, 2016, and

this action was commenced on October 18, 2022, ostensibly 34 days late. However, Defendant

overlooks that the running of statute of limitations in this case was tolled for 228 days by operation of

"Executive Order 202.8 and seven subsequent executive orders" which were issued in response to the

COVID-19 pandemic (Trento 67, LLC v OneWest Bank, NA., 214 AD3d 689 [2d Dept 2024];

Wilmington Trust, NA v Fife, 212 AD3d 550 [15 1 Dept 2023)). As such, Defendant's statute of

limitations affirmative defense to the cause of action to reform the mortgage fails as a matter of law.

In any event, an erroneous "metes and bounds" description attached to the mortgage does not bar

foreclosure. The Court of Appeals has noted that "[t]he language in which assessors can put land

descriptions, and the actual range and possibility of accurate actual description are quite as infinite as the

locations and lines of different land" (Goff v Shultis, 26 NY2d 240,244 [1970)). The issue to be

attended is whether the "the land can be identified with reasonable certainty notwithstanding [any]

errors" and "parol evidence may be introduced to identify the property intended and its exact

boundaries" (Brookhaven v Dinos, 76 AD2d 555, 561 [2d Dept 1980], affd 54 NY2d 911). In this case,

the note and mortgage clearly stated the property subject to the encumbrance was "432 Park A venue,

Unit 8 lA, New York, NY 10022" and contains the correct block and lot designation.

As to the branch of Plaintiffs motion to dismiss all Defendants' affirmative defenses, CPLR

§3211 [b] provides that "[a] party may move for judgment dismissing one or more defenses, on the

ground that a defense is not stated or has no merit". For example, affirmative defenses that are without

factual foundation, conclusory or duplicative cannot stand (see Countrywide Home Loans Servicing,

L.P. v Vorobyov, 188 AD3d 803,805 [2d Dept 2020]; Emigrant Bank v Myers, 147 AD3d 1027, 1028

[2d Dept 2017)). When evaluating such a motion, a "defendant is entitled to the benefit of every

reasonable intendment of its pleading, which is to be liberally construed. If there is any doubt as to the

availability of a defense, it should not be dismissed" (Federici v Metropolis Night Club, Inc., 48 AD3d

741, 743 [2d Dept 2008)).

All the affirmative defenses are entirely conclusory and unsupported by any facts in the answer

or by the papers submitted in opposition. As such, these affirmative defenses are nothing more than an

unsubstantiated legal conclusion which is insufficiently pled as a matter of law (see Board of Mgrs. of

Ruppert Yorkville Towers Condominium v Hayden, 169 AD3d 569 [15 1 Dept 2019]; see also Bosco

Credit V Trust Series 2012-1 v. Johnson, 177 AD3d 561 [15 1 Dept 2020]; 170 W Vil. Assoc. v G & E

850209/2022 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs. KOCAK, NACIYE ET AL Page 4 of 7

Motion No. 001

4 of 7

[* 4]

[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2024 03:46 P~ INDEX NO. 850209/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024

Realty, Inc., 56 AD3d 3 T2 [1st Dept 2008]; see also Becher v Feller, 64 AD3d 672 [2d Dept 2009];

Cohen Fashion Opt., Inc. v V & M Opt.. Inc., 51 AD3d 619 [2d Dept 2008]). Further, to the extent that

no specific legal argument was proffered in support of a particular affirmative defense, such defenses

were abandoned (see U.S. Bank NA. v Gonzalez, 172 AD3d 1273, 1275 [2d Dept 2019]; Flagstar Bank

v Bellafiore, 94 AD3d 1044 [2d Dept 2012]; Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, NA v Perez, 41 AD3d 590

[2d Dept 2007]).

The branch of Plaintiffs motion for a default judgment against the non-appearing parties is

granted (see CPLR §3215; SRMOF II 2012-1 Trust v Te/la, 139 AD3d 599, 600 [l st Dept 2016]).

The branch of Plaintiffs motion to amend the caption is granted (see generally CPLR §3025; JP

Morgan Chase Bank, NA. v Laszio, 169 AD3d 885, 887 [2d Dept 2019]).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against the appearing parties and for a

default judgment against the non-appearing parties is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the affirmative defenses pled by all the appearing Defendants are dismissed; and

it is further

ORDERED that Clark Whitsett, Esq. 66-05 Woodhaven Blvd., Rego Park, New York 11374

- 718-850-0003 is hereby appointed Referee in accordance with RP APL § 1321 to compute the amount

due to Plaintiff and to examine whether the property identified in the notice of pendency can be sold in

parcels; and it is further

ORDERED that in the discretion of the Referee, a hearing may be held, and testimony taken; and

it is further

ORDERED that by accepting this appointment the Referee certifies that he is in compliance with

Part 36 of the Rules of the Chief Judge (22 NYCRR Part 36), including, but not limited to §36.2 (c)

("Disqualifications from appointment"), and §36.2 (d) ("Limitations on appointments based upon

compensation"), and, if the Referee is disqualified from receiving an appointment pursuant to the

provisions of that Rule, the Referee shall immediately notify the Appointing Judge; and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to CPLR 8003(a), and in the discretion of the court, a fee of $350 shall

be paid to the Referee for the computation of the amount due and upon the filing of his report and the

Referee shall not request or accept additional compensation for the computation unless it has been fixed

by the court in accordance with CPLR 8003(b ); and it is further

ORDERED that the Referee is prohibited from accepting or retaining any funds for himself or

paying funds to himself without compliance with Part 36 of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge;

and it is further

ORDERED that if the Referee holds a hearing, the Referee may seek additional compensation at

the Referee's usual and customary hourly rate; and it is further

850209/2022 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs. KOCAK, NACIYE ET AL Page 5 of 7

Motion No. 001

5 of 7

[* 5]

[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2024 03:46 P~ INDEX NO. 850209/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall forward all necessary documents to the Referee and to Defendants

who have appeared in this case within 30 days of the date of this order and shall promptly respond to

every inquiry made by the referee (promptly means within two business days); and it is further

ORDERED that if Defendant(s) have objections, they must submit them to the referee within 14

days of the mailing of plaintiff's submissions; and include these objections to the Court if opposing the

motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale; and it is further

ORDERED that failure to submit objections to the referee may be deemed a waiver of objections

before the Court on an application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale; and it is further

ORDERED that the mortgage and any necessary loan documents related to such Mortgage be,

and the same hereby are, reformed by substituting therein the intended Legal Description of the

mortgaged premises, which is the correct description, in place of the mortgage premises description

which is erroneous (a copy of the Intended Mortgaged premises is attached); and it is further

ORDERED that the New York County Register for the City of New York note in the

original recorded mortgage recorded in the Register for the City of New York on September 27,

2016, in CRFN 2016000338172, that the legal description is hereby reformed; and it is further

ORDERED, that the caption of this action be amended by substituting City ofNew York Transit

Adjudication Bureau sued herein as "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" without prejudice to the proceedings

heretofore had herein; and it is further

ORDERED the caption is amended as follows:

SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------------X

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association,

Plaintiff,

-against-

Naciye Kocak a/k/a N. Kocak; Board of Managers of 432 Park

Condominium; City of New York Transit Adjudication

Bureau,

Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------X

and it is further,

ORDERED that Plaintiff must bring a motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale within 45

days of receipt of the referee's report; and it is further

ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to meet these deadlines, then the Court may sua sponte vacate

this order and direct Plaintiff to move again for an order of reference and the Court may sua sponte toll

interest depending on whether the delays are due to Plaintiff's failure to move this litigation forward;

and it further

850209/2022 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs. KOCAK, NACIYE ET AL Page 6 of7

Motion No. 001

6 of 7

[* 6]

[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2024 03:46 P~ INDEX NO. 850209/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024

ORDERED that counsel for Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order with notice of entry upon

the County Clerk (60 Centre Street, Room 141B) and the General Clerk's Office (60 Centre Street,

Room 119), who are directed to mark the court's records to reflect the parties being removed pursuant

hereto; and it is further

ORDERED that such service upon the County Clerk and the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office

shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County

Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing" page on the court's

website at the address (www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh)]; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order with notice of entry on all parties and

persons entitled to notice, including the Referee appointed herein.

All parties are to appear for a virtual conference via Microsoft Teams on January 15, 2025, at

11 :00 a.m. If a motion for judgment of foreclosure and sale has been filed Plaintiff may contact the Part

Clerk (SFC-Part32-Clerk@nycourts.gov) in writing to request that the conference be cancelled. If a

motion has not been made, then a conference is required to explore the reasons for the delay.

Mortgage Servicer: JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA -- Phone: (800) 848-9136.

9/9/2024

DATE FANC1s K~H~, 111, A.J.s.9- HN Ill

CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NcHQ.Ng1#~"'l;IS A. KA C

GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART

□ OTHER

J.S . .

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE

850209/2022 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs. KOCAK, NACIYE ET AL Page 7 of 7

Motion No. 001

7 of 7

[* 7]