Mary Aufrecht, Partner

Mary Aufrecht is a partner at Clair Gjertsen & Weathers PLLC. She started her legal career as a personal injury and maritime law attorney in New Orleans, Louisiana. However, having been a native New Yorker, Mary returned to practice in New York and was fortunate to gain the experience of working under Ira S. Clair, Esq., the founding member of Clair & Gjertsen, Esqs.

Since her return to New York she switched her legal focus to foreclosure defense, bankruptcy, and real estate transactions while also engaged in civil litigation, estate work, appellate practice, and loss mitigation. She has honed her legal skills in these areas since 2013 by appearing in thousands of court appearances ranging from local to state to federal court. During this time, she has carved out for herself a place of respect within the New York State legal community. Mary has had her case law frequently cited in many of her peers’ arguments, and due to her efforts in zealously defending her clients, she has assisted in ensuring the rights of borrowers are upheld within the judicial foreclosure process with her winning legal arguments.

Citimortgage, Inc. v Seller, 2020 NY Slip Op 06096 (2d Dept 2020) – 10.28.20

Court reversed judgment of foreclosure and sale, finding that referee’s findings were not substantially supported by the record.

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Buah, 130 NYS3d 733 (2d Dept 2020) – 10.14.20

Court reversed summary judgment for plaintiff’s failure to prove compliance with RPAPL §1304 and the notice of default required pursuant to the mortgage.

HSBC Bank USA, NA v Tigani, 185 AD3d 796 (2d Dept 2020) – 7.15.20

Court reversed judgment of foreclosure and sale, remanding the matter back to the lower court for a hearing as the referee’s findings were not substantially supported by the record.

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Yozzo, Index No. 2018/53384 -11.18.19

Court reaffirmed its holdings that the borrower’s statute of limitations defense was valid and that the bank was time barred from bringing the foreclosure action.

U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. v Williams, Index No. 1644/2014 – 8.23.19

Foreclosure action dismissed after trial and post-trial briefs based on the bank’s failure to comply with the RPAPL § 1304 notices.

Emigrant Bank v Solimano, Index No. 58709/2016 – 3.27.19

Successfully defended a borrower in a referee’s hearing, where the Referee found that the bank failed to prove standing, compliance with pre-foreclosure notice requirements and authority for its witness.

U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. v Weaver, Index No. 58446/2015 – 12.18.18

Foreclosure action dismissed after hearing and post hearing briefs for the bank’s failure to comply with RPAPL §1304(2).

21 Mortgage Corp v Rivera, Index No. 62926/2017 – 12.11.18

The court granted our motion declaring the bank’s note and mortgage to be invalid and time barred, thereby discharging the borrower’s mortgage debt.

Citimortgage, Inc. v Kidd, 148 AD3d 767 (2d Dept 2017) - 3.8.17

Court reversed judgment of foreclosure and sale, finding that the lower court improperly relied on the referee’s inadequately supported findings.

U.S. Bank, N.A. v Glusky 50 Misc.3d 313 (2d Dept 2015) – 10.7.15

Defeated a bank’s discovery motion regarding notice of admit.

Panels/Lectures