Public Advocate James, Fired Up, To Seek Meeting with Brooklyn Administrative Judge

Corrected and Revised*

New York City Public Advocate Letitia James cast a harsh spotlight on Justice Lawrence S. Knipel, the administrative judge in charge of civil cases in Brooklyn Supreme Court, at a meeting convened Friday, under the leadership of Brooklyn Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, to examine the impact of foreclosures upon communities of color.

During the course of the meeting at Brooklyn Law School, James rose on several occasions to express dismay over the way foreclosure cases are being handled in Brooklyn and angrily  vowed to seek a meeting with him.

About 70 public officials, homeowners’ lawyers and their clients attended the session. The session was presented in conjunction with the New York State Foreclosure Defense Bar.

The message from about a dozen lawyers and their clients, who were designated as presenters, was clear: the foreclosure crisis of the Great Recession is not over. To the contrary, the crisis is greater than ever because government-related entities, such as Fannie Mae, have been selling off huge amounts of troubled mortgages at bargain prices to investors, who, in Brooklyn, are pressing hard for foreclosures so they can take advantage of rising prices as gentrification in some of its poorer neighborhoods speeds ahead.

David J. Bryan, director of economic advocacy at Brooklyn Legal Service Corp. A, said that Fannie Mae and other like entities “will accept the loss of a substantial portion of homeowners’ debt when the loans are sold to hedge funds but not to help homeowners save their homes.”

“Hedge funds win and Jane Public loses,” Bryan explained, because, for example, Fannie Mae has rulemaking authority to forgive principal on loans it owns but chose not to exercise it, even though the Treasury Department has required the nation’s major banks to consider forgiveness.

In that vein, a report released by TARP’s Special Inspector General Christy Goldsmith Romero on January 27, found that $11 billion of the TARP funds set aside to fund the HAMP program in 2009 remains unspent. That is nearly 50 percent of the $22 billion originally earmarked to support HAMP. See TARP Report p.93 Unless reauthorized, HAMP will expire at the end of 2016.

TARP refers to the Troubled Asset Relief Program in which Congress approved a $700 billion bailout in 2008 of the nation’s collapsing financial system. Congress eventually pared the bailout to $475 million, of which $22 million was set aside to fund a program designed to provide mortgage relief to homeowners, who had become delinquent in their payments. The HAMP (Home Affordable Mortgage Program) was designed to provide a process by which banks and homeowners, in appropriate instances, would negotiate downward modifications of the amount homeowners are required to pay on their mortgages.

The U.S. Treasury Department subsequently issued detailed guidelines to determine who is eligible to receive a modification and, if so, in what form and what amount.

Inspector General Romero also found that only 22 percent of more than 5 million requests for HAMP loan modifications had been approved as of November 2015.TARP Report p.97

A study prepared by the New York State Foreclosure Defense Bar buttresses the notion that minority communities in Brooklyn have been disproportionately impacted by the gentrification process. The foreclosure bar twinned data from the Federal Reserve Board of New York examining the number of foreclosures in 2013 by zip code with 2010 census data on the racial makeup of 171 zip codes within the state.

The results of that analysis, which was part of a Powerpoint presentation at the session, show that four of the 10 zip codes with highest number of foreclosures in 2013 were in Brooklyn. The percentage of Hispanic and black people living in those neighborhoods ranged from 85 percent in the vicinity of Cypress Hills and East New York to 96 percent in East Flatbush, Brownsville and nearby neighborhoods.

Good NY Laws–Judicial Enforcement Spotty

The new pressure to extract the gold now present in the distressed assets held by the likes of HUD, HFA, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac comes against a backdrop of bank indifference and intransigence which has frustrated the operation of the HAMP program, said Jay Inwald, who oversees the foreclosure prevention practice of Legal Services NYC, which has aided 10,500  limited-income New York City homeowners since the HAMP program started in 2009.

Inwald noted that New York has very strong laws designed to help homeowners “avoid losing their homes.” Specifically, the state adopted a law in 2009 which dovetailed with the HAMP program to require holders of delinquent mortgages to negotiate “in good faith” before proceeding in court to foreclose upon homes. In 2014 the appeals court covering Brooklyn and Queens ruled that the bank adherence to the HAMP guidelines should be the measure of “good faith.”

Nonetheless, Inwald explained, banks frustrated the process by often (and repeatedly) losing the extensive paperwork homeowners were required to submit to qualify for a downward mortgage modification and refusing to process applications in the manner specified in HAMP guidelines.

More saliently, Inwald said, the courts have signaled a lukewarm approach to enforcing the requirement that banks negotiate in “good faith” with homeowners. In a follow up interview, he explained that the legislation adopting the “good faith” requirement specifically instructed the Office of Court Administration (OCA) to adopt rules to insure that court referees conducting the settlement conferences have the power to insure that the parties refrain from “willful dilatory practices.”

Yet, the rules issued by OCA to implement the new settlement process were silent on what powers referees and judges have to enforce the good faith requirement. As a result, he added, the courts have been loath to enforce specific requirements, enumerated in the new law (Civil Practice Rules and Procedures Section 3408) such as a requirement that banks appear at settlement conferences with full authority to “dispose” of a case. Instead, he said, banks routinely use attorneys, who are only hired for the day, and lack basic information about the case.

Residential Foreclosure Judges Cut from 25 to 2

Against this backdrop, Inwald said, Knipel in January overhauled the assignment of residential mortgage foreclosure cases to reduce the number of judges handling them from about 25 to two. Under this plan more than 6,000 pending residential foreclosure cases were are-assigned to Brooklyn Justice Noach Dear, a former City Councilman, who represented a predominately Orthodox Jewish section of Brooklyn. The remaining 2,000 “old” residential cases were transferred to Justice Peter Sweeney. Previously, the residential cases had been randomly assigned among 25 judges, all of whom handled many different types of civil cases.

At Friday’s meeting, Inwald said it is “difficult to imagine” how a single judge could handle 6,000 cases without “causing an even more substantial backlog or reverting to a rubber-stamp process.”

Inwald’s description of the problems posed by shifting 6,000 residential cases to a single judge is what brought Public Advocate James to her feet. She angrily demanded in reference to Knipel, “Who is this Supreme Court judge?” and vowed to seek a meeting with him.

That was one of several occasions in which James rose to express her dismay with the way foreclosure cases are being handled in Brooklyn and elsewhere in New York City. One of those instances was in response to the account of Carl Tripp, a manager of a U.S Postal Office in Brooklyn. Tripp related how he had been offered a mortgage modification by Chase Bank, and had paid his mortgage at the lower rate for six months, more than twice the time period specified in the HAMP guidelines. Nonetheless, Tripp said, Chase refused to make the loan modification permanent.

Reflecting upon Tripp’s treatment and the similar experience of another homeowner, James said, “No one should be treated like that.”

Several of the homeowner lawyers at the meeting recounted that only a day earlier, at their request, Knipel had met with them to discuss concerns about the assignment of so many residential cases to Justice Dear. They reported that at the meeting Knipel had been unresponsive to the issues they raised.

Lucien Chalfin, OCA’s Director of Public Information, declined to defend the new assignment system in Brooklyn or state whether Knipel would meet with James. Instead, he wrote in an email, “we don’t comment on assignments and certainly not on pending matters before the court.”

One wonders whether OCA will give Public Advocate James the same response when she requests a meeting with Knipel.

Nor will James be alone in seeking to resurrect and reform HAMP. The meeting was attended by state Assembly members Annette Robinson, Eric Dilan, and Latrice Walker, and Jumaane Williams and Inez Barron, both members of the City Council. All five, as well as Congresswoman Clarke, agreed to press officials at their level of government to put HAMP back on track.




*I misunderstood the dynamics behind the comment of Elizabeth Lynch, supervising attorney of the foreclosure prevention unit of MFY Legal Services, that government-related entities, such as Fannie Mae, are handling troubled mortgages in their portfolios in a manner that benefits wealthy investors at the expense of homeowners. I wish to thank David J. Bryan, director of economic advocacy at Brooklyn Legal Services Corp. A, for explaining how I had erred in presenting the point.

As a result I have substituted three paragraphs in place of the second and third paragraphs in the prior version of this article.




Filed under Foreclosure

4 responses to “Public Advocate James, Fired Up, To Seek Meeting with Brooklyn Administrative Judge

  1. nestor candia

    what about the fact that certain of the 25 judges mentioned above were loath to sign a judgment of foreclosure and sale ? what about the fact that many brooklyn homeowners have gone 7 + years w/o paying a mortgage payment ?

  2. Catherine Isobe

    Lenders submitted falsified and perjured documents to obtain foreclosure judgments. Maybe you heard of the “robosinging” scandal? It was so bad that the chief administrative judge of New York State had to require all the foreclosure plaintiffs’ attorneys to go back and verify their court papers, which should have been done in the first place under the applicable rules of professional responsibility. We also have rules of evidence in this state, which require that testimony be made on personal knowledge or, if based on a review of business records, the person testifiying must adequately swear to the records reviewed and the specific procedures in place to insure their accuracy. Many foreclosure plaintiffs cannot meet that simple burden.

    So tell me, if you have a mortgage, do you care who gets your payments? Are you happy to give your money to whoever shows up and says (without the proper evidence) they own your loan?

    Read the article- millions of borrowers applied for a program the big banks signed up for after they got hundreds of billions in bailouts. The banks, holding trillions of dollars in assets, couldn’t even manage to keep track of the loan mod applications. They failed to follow the rules- what makes them any better than someone who couldn’t pay their mortgage and tried to get a break so they could save their home?

  3. Talakkottur R. DAVID

    The whole process was completely abused in Long Island. I was evicted from my home after HSBC lawyers filed false and misleading affidavits in court and the law firm that had collected from me $5000.00 refused to even put in an appearance on my behalf demanding more money and that lawyer was later on reprimanded by the Bar Association after a thorough investigation by another law firm. The bottom line was that I was thrown out of my home for which I had paid $500000.00 WITHOUT the due process of the laws because the judge involved in the matter was far more partisan and corrupted and a politician and a wolf guarding the hen house. I am these days in India but I can be reached on my toll free number from USA 631-841-6222

  4. David Bryan

    As to Nestor’s comment regarding the delays involved in obtaining judgments and warrants in foreclosure cases, plaintiff lenders only have themselves to blame. My team and I defend 100-150 state foreclosure cases a year in Kings and Queens Counties (a bit of Bronx sometimes). About 70% of these cases eventually settle on terms that the homeowner finds acceptable. However, in the rest we defend motions that seek to get a judgment of foreclosure and eventual sale and eviction from the house. We win about 75-80% of those motions. However, our victories are always transitory. In every case, the Court will clearly state the problems in the plaintiff’s case. As Catherine stated above, there are very clear defects and all you have to do is get a person to do an affidavit who meets the legal standard or demonstrate that you negotiated in good faith. However, in almost every case, the plaintiff/lender will not correct the deficits, rather the plaintiff/lender will just let the case sit. This situation has gotten so bad that Judge Knipel has instituted a calendar call for neglected cases under CPLR sec. 3216 and thousands of cases have been dismissed accordingly AFTER BEING GIVEN AN ADDITIONAL 90 DAYS TO MOVE THE CASE FORWARD.

    If you’re frustrated, don’t look at the homeowner, look at your own clients and cases.

    “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
    But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
    Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141)