SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF KINGS
___________________________________________________ Index No.:
BNC MORTGAGE, INC., MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., (MERS) BANK OF MOTION TO
AMERICA, SOVEREIGN TITLE AGENCY LP. REARGUE
ELEANOR PHILLIPS, JEFFREY MILLER, REFEREE, PURSUANT TO
IRA K. MILLER ESQ. CPLR
Defendants. AND TO TAKE
JUDICIAL NOTICE

__________________________________________________X

TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK}

COUNTY OF KINGS }SS.:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Complainant, Emani Taylor respectfully submits to this Court as follows:

1. Complainant brings this action pursuant to Article 15 of Real Property Actions

Proceedings Law of the State of New York to compel a determination claim to

real property location at 246 Decatur Street, Brooklyn New York 11233.

2. Complainant also seeks a declaration that real and personal property previously

held by BNC Mortgage Inc. transferred to Mortgage Electronic Registration

System Inc. (MERS) as nominee and beneficiary who transferred it to Bank of

America to be held in trust by Wilmington Trust Company successor trustee, the

Complainant is entitled to a free and clear Title of any claim to an estate, or sale

since a partition cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners, trust or

other interest of the Defendant(s).

3. Complainant further seek orders granting temporary, preliminary, permanent

injunctive relief enjoining Defendant(s), and all persons claiming under or/and

acting concert with Complainant’s rights from interference to title, possession,

interest use of enjoyment of real and personal property at issues in this

litigation.

4. Plaintiff respectfully seeks relief and asks this court to take judicial notice of

attorney misconduct.

PARTIES

5. Complainant has equitable title in real property located at 246 Decatur Street,

Brooklyn New York 11233.

DEFENDANTS

6. BNC MORTGAGE INC. is a corporation doing business within the State of New

York, its principal place of business 1901 Main Street, Irvine CA 92614.

7. Bank of America is a corporation doing business within the State of New York, its

address is at 60 Livingston Avenue, Saint Paul MN 55107

8. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC. (MERS), its place of

business is located at 4318 Miller Road, Flint MI 48501.

9. Sovereign Title Agent LP is a corporation doing business within the State of New

York, its register agent location 485 Underhill Blvd. Suite 101, Syosset New York

11791
 10. Eleanor Phillips is a resident of the State of Massachusetts, located at 88 North

Main Street Attleboro Ma. 02703

11. Jeffrey Miller Esq., place of business 32 Broadway, 13th Floor, New York, New

York 10004

12. Ira K. Miller Esq., place of business 26 Court Street suite 400, Brooklyn New York

11242

STATEMENT

13. Plaintiff compels the Court to take Judicial Notice that there has NEVER been a

Note of Issue filed with the Kings County Clerks Office, thereby making the June

18, 2013 order void.

14. This Order appears to be entered by a mistake of the County Clerk’s Office who

failed to comply with the New York Rules of Civil Procedure XXXX.

15. This mistaken entry resulting in the rendering of a “Summary Judgment” which is

impossible to grant without the jurisdictional predicate Note of Issue.

16. . (Attached “A” Copy of Minutes with out any Note of Issue entered).

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED BY ANY COURT

17. This motion also seeks redress of the Court to reargue this matter based upon

NYCRR 22 Attorney Misconduct.

18. Plaintiff compels the Court to review the Affrimation submitted by IRA MILLER,

ESQ. Defendant IRA MILLER submitted a false affidavit to this Court sworn to
 under the penalty of perjury on _________. (See attached “B” Certified Copy of

Sworn Affidavit of IRA MILLER)

19. Such Affirmation induced the Court to proceed with jurisdiction when no such

jurisdiction existed.

PURSUANT TO NYCRR 22: JUDICIAL CONDUCT.

[22 NYCRR 100.3(A)–(E).]

20. The pure essence of judicial independence is that anyone litigant or lawyer

appearing before a judge can be certain that the judge will rule according to the

applicable rules, precedent and procedures without any bias or prejudice against

either party.

21. The American Bar Association was quoted; Judges should report to the

appropriate disciplinary committee or prosecuting attorney any serious

misconduct on the part of lawyers and judges which they believe would support

a complaint for disciplinary or criminal charges.

22. The American Bar Assocation Model Code of Judicial Conduct 3B imposes a
“duty” on judges to take appropriate disciplinary action with regard to illegal
conduct by lawyers appearing before judges.
23. A. The Rules Governing Judicial Conduct. In New York State, the Rules Governing Judicial
Conduct, 22 NYCRR Part 100 (the Rules), set standards for the ethical conduct of judges and
candidates for judicial office, as well as certain quasi-judicial employees of the court system, such
as Judicial Hearing Officers. These Rules, based largely on the American Bar Association’s Model
Code of Judicial Conduct, not only provide guidance but also set forth certain binding obligations,
the violation of which can result in disciplinary action by the New York State Commission on
Judicial Conduct (the Commission). They are intended to help maintain the integrity of the
judiciary and to ensure that judges uphold their duties as neutral arbiters of the law. Not every
transgression warrants discipline, however, as the Rules are intended to be “rules of reason.” [22
 NYCRR 100, Preamble.] Just as in the disciplinary process for attorneys, factors such as the
seriousness of the transgression, the frequency of occurrence, and the effect the conduct has on
the functioning of the judicial system, determine which sanctions, if any, should be imposed. [Id.]
24. Like the New York Code of Professional Responsibility, which focuses on a lawyer ‘s behavior
both in and out of office, the Rules delineate appropriate conduct not only in the performance of
the judge’s judicial duties, but in the judge’s everyday life as well. In fact, the Rules specifically
address certain activities the judge may wish to undertake as a member of the community and as
a private citizen, such as attending political gatherings, speaking at bar association programs, or
writing exclusive of judicial opinions. First and foremost, the Rules require that a judge must
“uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary” through “maintaining and enforcing
high standards of conduct,” [22 NYCRR 100.1], and require a judge to “avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.” [22 NYCRR 100.2 (emphasis added).]
These all-encompassing provisions require judges at all times to be cognizant of their obligations
as members of the judiciary.

25.

26. Only Section 100.3 directly addresses judicial duties. Because a judge must perform these
“impartially and diligently,” this section outlines the judge’s official duties, such as deciding
cases; performing administrative duties such as appointing staff; discharging disciplinary
responsibilities, such as reporting the misconduct of others; and observing obligations regarding
recusal and disqualification.

27. The Rules Governing Judicial Conduct (the Rules) specifically state that “[a] judge, who receives
information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a substantial
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility shall take appropriate action.” [22 NYCRR
100.3(D)(2) (emphasis added).] It is left to the judge’s discretion to determine whether the two
conditions, a substantial likelihood and a substantial violation, are met. The Advisory Committee
on Judicial Ethics (ACJE) has offered some guidance for identifying a “substantial violation.” In
Opinion 06-99, examining whether the Rules required the inquiring judge to report a lawyer who
had just lost a malpractice trial before a jury, the ACJE noted in language that parallels DR 1-103
that “a substantial violation is one that implicates the attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness, or
fitness as a lawyer.” [NY Jud. Adv. Op. 06-99 citingOpinions 89-74; 89-54.] When a judge
concludes that a substantial likelihood of a substantial violation exists, however, the judge must
take action, such as by reporting the lawyer to the appropriate disciplinary committee. This duty
to report is not optional. [22 NYCRR 100.3(D)(2); NY Jud. Adv. Ops. 06-99; 06-24; 05-30.]
28. Therefore, Plaintiff demands relief pursuant to [22 NYCRR 100.3(D)(2); NY Jud. Adv.
Ops. 06-99; 06-24; 05-30.] based on the attached Certified copy as Exhibit “B.”

REARGUE
29. In support of my claim as owner of the subject property, I have attached my

Commericial Security Agreement, UCC Lien and Injunction which establishes I have a

superior claim to the subject property in which no party contested or claimed

otherwise. (Attached exhibit “C”).

30. As a result, my claim has be thwarted by Defendant Ira Miller and his agents who knew

that no jurisdiction existed upon which he could contest, because he ceased to

represent Defendant Eleanor Phillips upon her death in or about August or September

2013

31. Further to date there has not been one motion made to replace plaintiff with her estate,

which again establishes the court has no jurisdiction to do so.

32. Plaintiff asserts that the Court was induced into believing that Defendant Eleanor

Phillips was a living breathing soul at the time it granted the Order of Dismissal.

33. However, but for Plaintiff’s claim that he “makes this affirmation because Plaitiff

[Eleanor Phillips] resides outside of the jurisdiction and was therefore unavailable, she

certainly was “unavailable” now, henceforth and forevermore.

34. Simply put that statement induced this Court to render an Order of Dismissal, since

Defendants were neither forthcoming about Eleanor Phillips death as well.