Ida Morra Caruso

The plaintiffs, who are elderly homeowners, brought an action alleging a large-scale mortgage fraud scheme perpetrated by the defendants.

During an injunction motion, the plaintiffs moved to remove the defendants' counsel, Mr. Fischhoff, arguing he was a material witness regarding a disputed conversation with the plaintiffs about the impugned mortgages.

Mr. Fischhoff brought a cross-motion to remove the plaintiffs' counsel.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding that Mr. Fischhoff was a material witness to a critical disputed fact and could not cross-examine the plaintiffs on his own communications with them.

The cross-motion to remove the plaintiffs' counsel was dismissed as entirely without merit.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for injunctive relief regarding alleged systemic mortgage fraud linked to a specific company's sales tactics.

The court continued prior interim orders on consent and granted additional interim relief requiring the defendant to seek court leave before enforcing any residential mortgages originated by the implicated company.

The court also ordered the defendant to notify mortgagors of legal assistance options upon seeking enforcement.

The issue of whether defense counsel must be removed from the record for being a potential witness was adjourned to a case conference.

The plaintiffs commenced an action and sought urgent injunctive relief to prevent the enforcement of notices of sale by the defendants.

The court granted an interim injunction preventing further steps in enforcing notices of sale against the named plaintiffs, finding the uncontradicted evidence justified the order.

The plaintiffs' requests for disclosure of other affected mortgagors and restrictions on future notices of sale, based on allegations of systemic conduct, were deferred to a return date to allow the defendants time to retain counsel and respond.