Robert P. Rubicco: Criminal, Liar, Fraud, Daycare Operator – Part XXIV (2017-18 Home Foreclosure Proceedings)

Robert P. Rubicco: Criminal, Liar, Fraud, Daycare Operator: Table of Contents

NEW ROCHELLE, N.Y. (January 25, 2026) — Robert Rubicco, Jr. and Christina Rubicco kept ownership of their 3 Kensington Oval home after a 2017 residential mortgage foreclosure action brought by U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for the CSAB Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-2, was voluntarily discontinued without prejudice in August 2018 following a private settlement.

The New Rochelle Property Portal states Anna Rubicco, Rob’s mother, bought 3 Kensington Oval in 2007. After she died, in 2013, her husband Robert Rubicco bought the property. In 2015, Anna’s Playhouse, LLC bought the property. Today, the listed owners are Robert Rubicco, Jr. and Christina Rubicco.

The case, Index No. 59674/2017 in Westchester County Supreme Court, never reached judgment, sale, or referee appointment. The notice of pendency (lis pendens) was cancelled, removing the legal cloud on title. No public auction occurred and no deed transferred ownership away from the Rubiccos.

The foreclosure complaint was filed June 27, 2017, alleging default on a modified mortgage that originated in 2005 and had been restructured in 2016. The action named the Rubiccos as primary defendants and listed multiple potential subordinate lienholders and judgment creditors.

Mortgage and Loan Chain

The debt began as follows:

• March 7, 2005: Original mortgage from Anna Rubicca a/k/a Anna Rubicco (Rob Rubicco’s mother) to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as nominee for Fremont Investment & Loan in the amount of $463,000. Recorded April 22, 2005 (Instrument 450960350).
• May 17, 2006: Assignment to MERS as nominee for Countrywide Home Loans. Recorded July 21, 2006 (Instrument 461920540).
• April 25, 2006: Second mortgage from Anna Rubicco to MERS as nominee for Countrywide in the amount of $125,328.03. Recorded July 21, 2006 (Instrument 461920552).
• April 25, 2006: Consolidation and Modification Agreement combining the two mortgages into a single $585,000 lien. Recorded July 21, 2006 (Instrument 461920555).
• August 28, 2008: Assignment to U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for CSAB Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-2. Recorded December 22, 2008 (Instrument 483470297).
• August 25, 2016: Assignment to Bank of America, N.A. Recorded August 25, 2016 (Instrument 562383158).
• March 11, 2016: Loan Modification Agreement from Bank of America to Paul Rubicco Jr. a/k/a Robert Paul Rubicco, Jr. Modified principal balance reduced to $449,193.96. Recorded September 8, 2016 (Instrument 562513354).
• June 6, 2017: Reassignment back to U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for CSAB Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-2. Recorded June 21, 2017 (Control Number 571723019).
  

The complaint alleged default after the 2016 modification (specific payment history and arrears amounts were referenced in unreleased schedules).

Initiation and Service (2017)

• June 23, 2017: Attorney certification under CPLR § 3012-b filed by Maisha M. Blakeney of Davidson Fink LLP, confirming standing after consultation with Bank of America servicer representative Constance Crouse.
• June 27, 2017: Notice of Pendency filed (detailed metes-and-bounds description of the property); Summons and Verified Complaint filed.
• July 2017: ProVest LLC completed service on all named defendants, including:
  
  • NY State Commissioner of Taxation and Finance (June 30, via Attorney General office in Hauppauge).
  • Bank of America, N.A. (July 3, via CT Corporation System in New York City).
  • Workers’ Compensation Board (July 3 at Albany headquarters via Senior Attorney Mary E. McManus; supplemental July 6 at Schenectady office via Virginia Cantion).
  • NY State Department of Labor/Unemployment Insurance Division (July 3 via McManus at Albany).
  • Computing Resources, Inc. d/b/a Intuit Payroll Services (July 3 via NY Secretary of State).
  • TriNet HR Corporation (July 3 via NY Secretary of State).
  • United States Attorney Financial Litigation Unit (July 3 personal at Southern District of New York office; July 10 certified mail to U.S. Department of Justice).
  • Robert Rubicco, Jr. (personal service July 6 and July 14 at the property).
  • Christina Rubicco (substituted service via Robert July 6 at the property + July 10 mailing).
    

RPAPL § 1303 homeowner and tenant foreclosure notices were delivered in person (on colored paper, bold 14-point type, title in 20-point bold) and mailed first-class/certified.

Mandatory Settlement Conferences

The owner-occupied status triggered mandatory settlement conferences under CPLR § 3408:

• July 25, 2017: Request for Judicial Intervention and Foreclosure Addendum filed, confirming § 1304 90-day notice mailed November 3, 2016.
• July 25, 2017: Court issued notice scheduling initial conference for August 18, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 1803, Westchester County Courthouse.
• August 18, 2017: Initial conference held; intake form completed.
• September 9, 2017: Follow-up conference; adjourned for further review.
• September 26, 2017: Follow-up conference; status form notes defendant non-compliance with prior directive to submit loan modification package.
• December 21, 2017: Further conference; adjourned to January 11, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
  

Defendant Responses

• July 18, 2017: Workers’ Compensation Board filed limited appearance and waiver (waived most notices except sale and surplus proceedings).
• July 26, 2017: New York Attorney General appeared for Commissioner of Labor (limited waiver).
• September 5, 2017: United States of America filed limited appearance and waiver (asserted 120-day redemption right under 28 U.S.C. § 2410(c)).
• September 13, 2017: Robert Rubicco filed Verified Answer — general denial of allegations, plus defenses including lack of standing, failure to state a foreclosure cause of action, and statute of limitations bar due to acceleration more than six years earlier (CPLR § 213(4) and RPAPL § 1501(4)).
• October 11, 2017: Computing Resources, Inc. (Intuit Payroll Services) filed limited appearance and waiver.
• Post-service: At least one defendant filed a Disclaimer of Interest (disclaiming any lien or claim to the property).
  

Resolution

• July 18, 2018: Plaintiff filed Notice of Motion for discontinuance on submission of papers.
• July 19, 2018: Supporting affirmation by Maisha M. Blakeney.
• Summer/Fall 2018: Affidavit of Sean Latulip (proof of service of motion papers).
• August 7, 2018: Hon. Kathie E. Davidson, A.J.S.C. signed Order Discontinuing Action and Cancelling Lis Pendens. The action was discontinued without prejudice after settlement. Lis pendens cancelled. Supporting affirmation for entry filed January 18, 2019.
  

Creditors Named in the Action

The complaint and related filings named the following entities as potential subordinate lienholders or judgment creditors:

• Bank of America, N.A.
• NY State Commissioner of Taxation and Finance
• United States Attorney Financial Litigation Unit (later United States of America)
• Workers’ Compensation Board of the State of New York
• Computing Resources, Inc. d/b/a Intuit Payroll Services
• TriNet HR Corporation
• New York State Department of Labor / Unemployment Insurance Division Commissioner of Labor
• Department of Labor, Department of Taxation and Finance
• “John Doe” and “Mary Doe” (fictitious for unknown occupants/claimants)
  

No specific dollar amounts owed to any of these creditors were stated in the foreclosure file.

Post-2018 Outcome

No subsequent foreclosure action, sale, or transfer appears in public records for the property. Ownership remains associated with the Rubicco family.

Contradiction in 2020 Amex Case

In a separate federal case (American Express National Bank v. Robert Rubicco, S.D.N.Y. 7:20-cv-11122), Rubicco stated in a December 2020 court filing that he possessed “otherwise excellent credit.” In the same filing he asserted that the Small Business Administration denied a business loan because American Express had reported the delinquency to credit rating agencies.

Rubicco assertion to the court he had ‘otherwise excellent credit’ appears sharply at odds with the documented financial and legal record, including the very $72,000+ Amex delinquency he was defending, past years of unpaid restitution from a federal conviction, and multiple liens/judgments listed in the earlier foreclosure action.

The $72,293.87 Amex debt was in active litigation at the time. Rubicco’s own explanation of the SBA denial directly acknowledged that negative credit reporting from the Amex delinquency had damaged his credit profile.

By any objective measure of creditworthiness, the assertion of “otherwise excellent credit” appears sharply at odds with the active delinquency he was defending, which he himself said prevented him from obtaining an SBA loan.

Assessment of Robert Rubicco’s December 2020 Claim of “Otherwise Excellent Credit”

The core question is whether the claim was factually false (a potential misrepresentation to the court) or merely a subjective opinion that a reasonable person could hold.

1. The Claim in Context

In December 2020, while defending against American Express National Bank’s attempt to collect approximately $72,293.87 on a defaulted credit card account, Rubicco stated in a court filing that he had “otherwise excellent credit.” He further asserted that the SBA denied a business loan because American Express had reported him to the credit rating agencies, implying the Amex delinquency was the sole or primary reason for the denial.

2. Factual Indicators of Creditworthiness in December 2020

The following elements were either documented in the foreclosure file or directly admitted/established in the Amex case:

Active $72,293.87 credit card delinquency in federal collection litigation

By December 2020, this debt was in default, likely charged off (typically at 180 days), and had been reported as delinquent to all three major credit bureaus for months. A charge-off of this size is one of the most severe negative events possible on a credit report. It typically reduces a FICO score by 100–150+ points and remains on reports for 7 years. “Excellent credit” (generally defined as 740–850 FICO) is incompatible with a $72,000 + charge-off in active litigation.

Self-admitted credit damage from Amex reporting

Rubicco explicitly told the court the SBA loan was denied because Amex reported the delinquency to credit agencies. This is a direct acknowledgment that his credit profile had been materially and negatively impacted by the Amex debt — the very opposite of “excellent credit.”

Unpaid federal restitution (for years, he owed about $10,000)

From the computer hacking conviction (reduced from felony to misdemeanor via plea), Rubicco had owed for years approximately $10,000 in restitution to the victim employer.

Federal criminal conviction & probation violations

• Guilty plea to computer hacking (federal misdemeanor after reduction).
• Multiple probation violations resulting in 3 week sentence to federal prison.
• Criminal convictions (even misdemeanors) involving fraud, dishonesty, or unauthorized access appear on background checks and can negatively affect credit decisions and government loan eligibility (SBA routinely denies or scrutinizes applicants with recent criminal history).
  

2010 Eastchester misdemeanor convictions

Impersonating a law-enforcement official: witness tampering (both reduced to misdemeanors via plea). These are crimes of dishonesty and interference with justice — factors that lenders view negatively, especially when combined with more recent federal conviction.

Chronic liens/judgments from the 2017 foreclosure file

• Multiple state/federal creditors named (workers’ comp, unemployment insurance, Intuit payroll judgment, state tax, etc.).
• These reflect years of financial strain, unpaid obligations, and collection activity — all of which appear on credit reports and contradict “excellent credit.”
  

3. Is the Statement Opinion or a Factual Misrepresentation?

It is not reasonably a matter of opinion — it is a factually false statement in the context presented.

• Creditworthiness is not purely subjective. “Excellent credit” has an objective industry definition (FICO 740–850 or VantageScore 781–850), characterized by:
• No major delinquencies or charge-offs
• Low credit utilization
• Consistent on-time payments
• Minimal negative items (collections, judgments, bankruptcies)
  
• A $72k+ charge-off in active litigation, years of unpaid $10k restitution, recent federal criminal conviction/probation violations, and years of documented liens/judgments objectively preclude excellent credit status in December 2020.
  
• Rubicco’s own words undermine any subjective defense: he explicitly linked the SBA denial to Amex’s negative reporting — meaning he knew (and told the court) that his credit had been damaged by the very debt he was defending. Claiming “excellent credit” in the same filing is internally inconsistent and factually inaccurate.
  

4. Legal Implications: Lying to the Court vs. Opinion

• In a federal court filing, a party has a duty of candor (Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, inherent court authority). A knowingly false statement of material fact can constitute:
  
  • A Rule 11 violation (sanctionable if made without reasonable inquiry or for improper purpose).
  • Potential perjury if made under penalty of perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1621, though rare for civil filings).
  • Evidence of bad faith or lack of credibility in the proceeding.
    
• Here, the claim is material: Rubicco used it to downplay the Amex debt, bolster his credibility, or argue the delinquency was isolated. It is not a vague opinion (“I feel my credit is good”) but a specific assertion (“otherwise excellent credit”) contradicted by his own explanation of the SBA denial.
  
• Conclusion: The statement is factually false based on objective credit reporting standards and the documented financial/legal history. It is not reasonably defensible as mere opinion, especially given Rubicco’s simultaneous admission that Amex reporting had damaged his credit enough to block SBA funding.
  

This article was drafted with the aid of Grok, an AI tool by xAI, under the direction and editing of Robert Cox to ensure accuracy and adherence to journalistic standards.