Nagessar v. Ne. Alliance Mortg. Banking Corp.

Court Is Unable to Plausibly Infer Defendant Encumbered Subject Property's Title

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER On November 21, 2018, Tarasmatti Nagessar (“Plaintiff”) brought this action pro se against Northeast Alliance Mortgage Banking Corporation (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 1, Complaint (“Compl.”).) Plaintiff’s complaint sought an order to quiet title to real property located at 111 Euclid Avenue in Brooklyn, New York (the “Subject Property”). (Id. at 5-6.) Plaintiff now moves for a default judgment against Defendant. (ECF No. 27, Motion for Default Judgment.) For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED, and the complaint is dismissed. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within sixty days of this Order. Background This is the third action Plaintiff has brought in federal court related to the Subject Property. The first, filed in August 2016 against three defendants not named here, was voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Case No. 16-cv-4266.) The second, filed in November 2016 against Defendant in this action, among others, was dismissed without prejudice by Judge Carol Bagley Amon under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) after Plaintiff failed to prosecute her claims. (Case No. 16-cv-6680.) Plaintiff initiated the instant action in November 2018. According to Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff purchased the Subject Property in 1995. (Compl. 9.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “recorded fraudulent documents against the title” of the Subject Property with the Recorder’s Office in Kings County, New York. (Id. 8.) These fraudulent recordings allegedly occurred after Plaintiff hired Defendant “to negotiate a loan modification on her behalf” in February 2014. (Id. 10.) Plaintiff alleges that she realized in November 2016 that the was the victim of a crime, and that Defendant “was part of a nationwide real estate scam perpetrated on unsuspecting homeowners seeking to modify their home loans.” (Id.

Nagessar v. Ne. Alliance Mortg. Banking Corp.

Court Is Unable to Plausibly Infer Defendant Encumbered Subject Property's Title

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal