Montoute v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

208 A.D.3d 474

173 N.Y.S.3d 283

Oswyn MONTOUTE, et al., appellants,

v.WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., respondent, et al., defendants.

2019–10817

Index No. 602065/19

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—April 25, 2022

August 3, 2022

Petroff Amshen, LLP, Brooklyn, NY (Serge F. Petroff, James Tierney, and Steven Amshen of counsel), for appellants.

Reed Smith, LLP, New York, NY (Andrew B. Messite and Kerren B. Zinner of counsel), for respondent.

FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P., LINDA CHRISTOPHER, LARA J. GENOVESI, WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for violations of General Business Law § 349, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Julianne T. Capetola, J.), dated August 28, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the cause of action alleging violations of General Business Law § 349 insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In 2007, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Wells Fargo), commenced an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage given by Oswyn Montoute (hereinafter Oswyn) and secured by certain residential property located in Nassau County and owned by Oswyn and Janice Montoute (hereinafter together the Montoutes). The Montoutes failed to timely appear or answer the complaint. In 2017, Wells Fargo obtained a judgment of foreclosure and sale, and subsequently the subject premises were sold.

In March 2019, the Montoutes commenced this action against Wells Fargo, among others, inter alia, to recover damages for violations of General Business Law § 349, based on allegations that Wells Fargo had "wrongfully foreclosed" on the subject premises. Wells Fargo moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it, arguing, among other things, that this action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The Montoutes opposed the motion. In an order dated August 28, 2019, the Supreme Court granted Wells Fargo's motion, and the Montoutes appeal.

Under the doctrine of res judicata, "once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" ( Chapman Steamer Collective, LLC v. KeyBank N.A., 163 A.D.3d 760, 761, 81 N.Y.S.3d 501 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Eaddy v. U.S. Bank N.A., 180 A.D.3d 756, 758, 119 N.Y.S.3d 212 ). "The doctrine of res judicata bars a party from relitigating any claim which could have been or should have been litigated in a prior proceeding" ( Chapman Steamer Collective, LLC v. KeyBank N.A., 163 A.D.3d at 761, 81 N.Y.S.3d 501 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Jacobson Dev. Group, LLC v. Grossman, 198 A.D.3d 956, 156 N.Y.S.3d 363 ). Thus, a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered against a defendant is final as to all questions at issue between the parties, and concludes all matters of defense which were or might have been raised in the foreclosure action (see Eaddy v. U.S. Bank N.A., 180 A.D.3d at 758, 119 N.Y.S.3d 212 ; 83–17 Broadway Corp. v. Debcon Fin. Servs., Inc., 39 A.D.3d 583, 584–585, 835 N.Y.S.2d 602 ). Moreover, "[a] judgment by default that has not been vacated is conclusive for res judicata purposes and encompasses the issues that were raised or could have been raised in the prior action" ( Eaddy v. U.S. Bank N.A., 180 A.D.3d at 758, 119 N.Y.S.3d 212 ; see 83–17 Broadway Corp. v. Debcon Fin. Servs., Inc., 39 A.D.3d at 585, 835 N.Y.S.2d 602 ).

Here, the judgment of foreclosure and sale entered upon the Montoutes's default in the foreclosure action encompasses all issues that were raised or could have been raised in that action, including whether they were eligible for a loan modification and whether Wells Fargo failed to negotiate...