You are here: / / Question of Fact About Whether Plaintiff Had Standing to Bring Foreclosure...

Question of Fact About Whether Plaintiff Had Standing to Bring Foreclosure Proceeding

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court, finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding.  The defendant alleged plaintiff did not have standing to bring the action. The Second Department determined the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of its standing to support summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor.  In explaining the underlying legal principles, the Second Department wrote:

“In a mortgage foreclosure action, a plaintiff has standing where it is both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced”…. “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident”…. However, “a transfer or assignment of only the mortgage without the debt is a nullity and no interest is acquired by it,” since a mortgage is merely security for a debt and cannot exist independently of it…. “Where, as here, the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief”…. Homecomings Financial, LLC v Guldi, 2013 NY Slip Op 05048, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

You might also like
THE BUILDER OF THE HOUSE WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS ACTION AGAINST THE SELLER BY THE PURCHASER; EVEN IF THE BUILDER WERE A NECESSARY PARTY, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE SUMMONED THE BUILDER ITSELF PURSUANT TO CPLR 1001 (b) RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ADMITTED WITH COVID, WAS TREATED FOR COVID AND DIED FROM COVID; PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) THE DEFENDANT WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT (SECOND DEPT).
Supreme Court Has Power to Issue Judicial Consent to Settlement Nunc Pro Tunc Where Workers’ Compensation Carrier Failed to Timely Seek Consent to a Third-Party Settlement from the Special Funds Conservation Commission
PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST RAN INTO THE BACK OF DEFENDANT’S STOPPED OR STOPPING CAR; DEFENDANT DRIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WERE RAISED ABOUT DEFENDANT CON ED’S AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION, IN PART BY THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT, CON ED’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF WAS USING AN EXCAVATOR WHEN IT TIPPED OVER INTO A CREEK (SECOND DEPT).
INCONSEQUENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF THE ELECTION LAW DID NOT INVALIDATE THE DESIGNATING PETITION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION FELL FROM AN INVERTED BUCKET HE WAS STANDING ON TO REACH A POWER CABLE; DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THERE WAS NO NEED FOR PLAINTIFF TO ELEVATE HIMSELF TO DO HIS JOB; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA REQUIRED THAT HE BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS CASE MANDATING AN EXPLANATION OF DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES CAME DOWN AFTER DEFENDANT’S PLEA.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Proceeds of Sale of Property After Dissolution of Partnership Not “Profit... No Need for Proof of Agent’s Authority—Five-Day Notice Demanding Rent V...