Is it me, or does this go on in almost every case you see? Anyway, Judge Spinner in New York was having none of it. Full opinion 12-01-2010-ny-judge-spinner-u-s-bank-natl-assn-v-mathon:
Here, the Court has serious and grave concerns regarding Plaintiff’s conduct in this matter, which appears to be rife with bad faith. This can be amply seen by the acceptance of multiple payments following the three trial payments, the promise albeit unfulfilled of the permanent modification and the verbal assurances that the modification had been approved juxtaposed with the vague denial issued one year after the trial agreement, the spurious claims of non-cooperation by Defendants, the seeming offer of a “new” modification and the withdrawal of the motion for judgment in an apparent attempt to divest this Court of jurisdiction to deal with this Order To Show Cause.
It is the province and indeed the obligation of the trial court to assess and to determine issues regarding credibility, Morgan v. McCaffrey 14 AD3d 670 (2nd Dept. 2005). In the matter before the Court, the pendulum of credibility seems to swing heavily in favor of Defendants. When the conduct of Plaintiff in this proceeding is viewed in its entirety, it compels the Court to invoke the ancient and venerable principle of “Falsus in uno, falsus in omni” (Latin; “false in one, false in all”) upon Defendant which, after review, is wholly appropriate in the context presented, Deering v. Metcalf 74 NY 501 (1878). Regrettably, the Court has, thus far, been unable to find even a scintilla of good faith respecting Plaintiff’s conduct. Plaintiff comes before this Court with seemingly unclean hands demanding equitable relief against Defendants.
After careful consideration, it is the determination of this Court that this matter be set down for a hearing to explore whether Plaintiff has acted in good faith, whether or not sanctions should be imposed upon Plaintiff or whether the Court should consider the invocation of other remedial measures.