Recitation in accordance with CPLR 2219 (a) of the papers considered on the motion of plaintiff, HSBC Bank USA as Trustee for Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group, Inc. (FBR) Securitization Name -FBR 2005-1 (hereinafter HSBC or the plaintiff), filed on October 15, 2015, under motion sequence number four, for an order: (1) granting a default judgment against all the defendants pursuant to CPLR 3215, (2) appointing a referee to compute pursuant to the RPAPL 1321; and (3) amending the caption by substituting Janice Jones in the place of the "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" defendants.

-Notice of Motion

Proposed Order of reference

-Affirmation in support

-Exhibit A-I

On April 17, 2008, HSBC commenced the instant residential mortgage foreclosure action by filing a summons, complaint and a notice of pendency (hereinafter the commencement papers) with the Kings County Clerk's office (KCCO). HSBC has averred that no defendant has answered the complaint or submitted opposition to the instant motion.

Part A of the Kings County Supreme Court Uniform Civil Term Rules provides in pertinent part that motions, orders and other filed papers filed with the KCCO shall be indexed with protruding tabs.

Part F of the Kings County Supreme Court Uniform Civil Term Rules sets rules pertaining generally to foreclosure. Part F (5) of those rules provides that an order of reference must have appended thereto, the history of the property by way of a chain of assignment, the date of the assignment, and a reference to the tab where that assignment is located.

The instant motion papers contain a proposed order of reference, an affirmation of plaintiff's counsel, and nine annexed exhibits labeled A through I.

The affirmation avers that the thirty-two allegations of fact contained therein are based on information and belief derived from a review of file maintained at counsel's office and from conversations with plaintiff's staff. Paragraph two of the affirmation refers to a mortgage on real property as more fully described in Schedule A. The affirmation, however, does not state where Schedule A can be found within the motion papers.

The affirmation makes reference to exhibit D in paragraph 29, exhibit G in paragraph 20 and exhibit H in paragraph 19. The affirmation, however, makes no reference to exhibits A, B, C, E, F and I and makes no mention of an index for the documents annexed and labeled A through I.

Exhibit A is an affidavit by Ryan K. Bucholtz, an individual who has described himself or herself as Vice-president of JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A (hereinafter Chase). The affidavit further indicates that Chase is the plaintiff's servicer. The affidavit contains ten allegations of fact. It does not refer to an index for the annexed documents or otherwise identify or refer to the any of the documents that are annexed and labeled A through I.

Contrary to aforementioned Kings County Supreme Court Uniform Civil Term Rules, HSBC's motion papers lack an index identifying the exhibits annexed to it. This defect would normally be disregarded as a mere irregularity if the annexed exhibits had been described or explained in the affirmation of HSBC's counsel or in the affidavit of merit of the plaintiff's purported servicer of the subject loan. However, with the exception of exhibits D, G and H, no other annexed exhibit was described or explained (see Citimortgage, Inc. v La Fortune, 48 Misc 3d 1228(A) [NY State Sup. Ct. 2015]; 2015 NY Slip Op 51292 [U]).

CPLR 2214 requires that a movant set forth the facts, the proffered evidence and the law relied upon for the relief it is requesting. By not explaining the annexed exhibits the movant has not complied with CPLR 2214 and has made the motion into a puzzle and a mystery (Id.).

In effect, the Court is being asked to sort through all of the unexplained annexed exhibits to figure out what they are and what their relevance is to relief sought. The Court declines to do so.

Based on the foregoing, the Court is denying the motion in its entirety, including that branch which seeks an order to amend the caption. The motion, however, is denied without prejudice.

In the interest of judicial economy, the Court stopped reviewing the instant motion papers after finding the above mentioned problem. In the event that the movant seeks the same relief in a subsequent motion it is directed to annex the instant decision and order with its motion papers; include an index and protruding tabs for all exhibits annexed to its motion and otherwise comply with Kings County Supreme Court Uniform Civil Term Rules as set forth herein.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court.

J.S.C.