Facing foreclosure? Petroff Amshen LLP is a New York consumer rights and foreclosure defense law firm. We find the defense in your file and take it to court.
Free case review. Confidential. Representation is by application.
Quick AnswerIn July 2026, Judge Menachem M. Mirocznik of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rejected a $964,835.75 referee's report in a Brooklyn foreclosure that JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, started in 2017, and fixed the amount due at $1. The report rested entirely on an affidavit from a director at Carrington Mortgage Services, the company that said it serviced the loan. Petroff Amshen showed the court that the affidavit lacked the foundation New York's business records rule requires. The court held the affidavit and its attachments were inadmissible hearsay, and that the bank had already had its one full and fair opportunity to prove the amount due. On payment of $1, the $508,190 mortgage lien is deemed satisfied and canceled.
JPMorgan Chase Bank started this foreclosure on June 19, 2017, against our clients over their property in Brooklyn. The loan was a consolidated mortgage lien of $508,190.
By 2026 the case had reached the stage where a court-appointed referee works out how much is owed. The referee's report, dated February 9, 2026, said the total due was $964,835.75 as of January 16, 2026. The bank asked the court to confirm that number.
The report rested entirely on an affidavit from a purported director at Carrington Mortgage Services, the company that said it serviced the loan for the trust now claiming it. We opposed the bank's motion and asked the court to reject the report and fix the amount due at $1.
Judge Menachem M. Mirocznik agreed that the affidavit could not be used. The foundation for it failed, he wrote, "at every link in the chain." The assignment to the trust covered the mortgage but not the note. The power of attorney Carrington relied on pointed to a servicing agreement that was never produced. The director said he was "familiar" with the record-keeping but never claimed personal knowledge of it. He did not name the earlier servicers or say when Carrington took over the loan, even though the default allegedly happened years before Carrington arrived. And the payment records themselves were not legible.
New York's business records rule, CPLR 4518(a), requires more than that. The court held the affidavit and everything attached to it were inadmissible hearsay, and it rejected the referee's report in all respects.
A bank gets "one full and fair opportunity to prove the amount due," the court held, and this bank had already had it. The referee's review usually happens on paper, with no witnesses and no cross-examination, using the bank's own records. If the bank could not prove its numbers there, "the fault lies nowhere but with the plaintiff." The judge put it plainly:
It was not denied a full and fair opportunity. It declined one.Supreme Court, Kings County, Decision, Order and Judgment, July 2026
In its reply papers the bank disputed only whether its proof was admissible. It never argued it deserved more than nominal damages if that proof failed, and it never asked for another hearing. The court treated that silence as a concession and fixed the amount due at the nominal sum of $1. "If that sum seems small against the debt the plaintiff insists it is owed," the judge wrote, the answer is that "the court values what is proven. Nothing was."
Figures from the referee's report dated February 9, 2026, and the court's decision filed July 16, 2026.
The record, in order: what the referee computed, the lien behind it, and what the court held on each argument.
A referee's report is only as good as the evidence behind it. The bank, not the borrower, has to prove its number with evidence a court can accept.
Under CPLR 4518(a), the person vouching for the records has to know how they were made and kept. Saying he was "familiar" with them was not enough, and he did not explain how records from earlier servicers came into Carrington's files.
The payment history attached to the affidavit was not legible, so it could not support the figure in the report.
A reference usually happens on paper, with no witnesses and no cross-examination, using the bank's own records. The bank had that chance, and the court would not give it another.
The bank never argued for more than nominal damages if its proof failed, and never asked for another hearing. That left the court one amount to fix: $1.
The amount a bank says you owe is something it has to prove. Every dollar needs evidence a court can accept, and a servicer's affidavit is only as good as the foundation behind it. When loans pass through several servicers, that foundation is often where the trouble is.
If a referee's report has been filed in your case, or the bank has asked for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, have a lawyer look at the proof before the court signs off on it.
I could not recommend a better group than Petroff Amshen. If you find yourself in a situation that requires the assistance of attorneys, this is the firm.
After years of battling in court, thousands of dollars in legal fees, and quite a few subpar attorneys, we found Petroff and Amshen, who delivered winning results. They're incredibly easy to talk to, making the whole legal process feel less intimidating.
An effective firm with a minimum of fuss. When you need attorneys who actually do the work, you need these guys on your side.
Petroff Amshen does not take every case. Submit the application and a licensed New York attorney will review the matter directly. The case review is free and confidential.