In US Bank v. Sarmiento (121 AD3d 187 [2d Dept 2014]), plaintiff appealed from an order that among other things, at 197: granted Sarmiento's motion to bar the plaintiff from collecting interest or fees that accrued on the subject loan since December 1, 2009, to bar the plaintiff from recovering any costs or attorneys' fees it incurred in this action, and to direct the plaintiff to review the subject loan for a HAMP loan modification using correct information and without regard to interest or fees that have accrued on the subject loan since December 1, 2009. The Supreme Court determined that, while the plaintiff had failed to negotiate in good faith as required by CPLR 3408 (f), Sarmiento had acted in good faith. The Sarmiento Court, at 203, in affirming the order of Supreme Court, Kings County, instructed, "we hold that the issue of whether a party failed to negotiate in good faith' within the meaning of CPLR 3408 (f) should be determined by considering whether the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that the party's conduct did not constitute a meaningful effort at reaching a resolution ." Moreover, at 204, the Court stated, "our determination is consistent with the purpose of the statute, which provides that parties must negotiate in good faith' in an effort to resolve the action, and that such resolution could include, if possible,' a loan modification." Further, at 204, the Court instructed: Where a plaintiff fails to expeditiously review submitted financial information, sends inconsistent and contradictory communications, and denies requests for a loan modification without adequate grounds, or, conversely, where a defendant fails to provide requested financial information or provides incomplete or misleading financial information, such conduct could constitute the failure to negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution. Lastly, the Sarmiento Court was aware that it could not force a lender to rewrite the terms of a mortgage loan.