Martin Dekom v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

A county court in New York invented a legal process which streamlines foreclosure by removing statutory requirements and motions. Can a court of its own interstitial rulemaking power supplant or replace the legislative scheme? In New York, after a summons and complaint is served, a party cannot defend himself until he or the plaintiff files and pays for a Request for Judicial Intervention (RJI), regardless of the time set by the summons. Is this a permissible burden of Due Process? Parties The caption contains the names of the parties to the action in the New York Court of Appeals: Nationstar Mortgage LLC, respondent, and Martin Dekom, petitioner. Decisions at issue New York State Court of Appeals No. 2018-1028, Nationstar v Dekom: The Order Denying Appeal by the New York Court of Appeals dated April 30,2020 with Notice of Entry on July 18,2020, is Appendix A. New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department Index Nos. 2015- 02955,2015-09970,2015-09971, Nationstar v Dekom: The intermediate appellate order affirming the judgment, entered May 16,2018 and noticed on May 18,2018, and companion order denying reargument dated August 10, 2018, and notice thereof made August 20s*, 2018, is Appendix B. Nassau County Supreme Court No 2013-08566, Nationstar v Dekom (originally Bank of America v. Dekom): The trial court’s initial Order, Nassau County Supreme Court dated December 2, 2014 with notice ofentry January 12,2015, and subsequent Order denying Show Cause dated April 20,2015 with notice of entry on May 14,2015, and its Order denying motion to dismiss, dated April 8,2015 and noticed on June 26,2015, are Appendix C.