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
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT PROVEN; PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT)
NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION CAUSE ACTION BASED UPON A JANITOR’S CALLING PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER NAMES PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PROOF JANITOR WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR INSUFFICIENT, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, DEFAMATION, AND PRIMA FACIE TORT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF.
OMISSION OF RETURN DATE FROM AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, WHICH DID NOT RESULT IN PREJUDICE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISREGARDED AS A TECHNICAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
PRESUMABLY THE ROBBERY AND GRAND LARCENY CHARGES STEMMED FROM THE THEFT OF THE TAXI CAB (THE FACTS ARE NOT EXPLAINED); THE ACQUITTAL OF UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE RENDERED THE ROBBERY AND GRAND LARCENY CONVICTIONS REPUGNANT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE PARENTAL ACCESS SCHEDULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RULED ON WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
SANCTIONS PROPERLY IMPOSED FOR BRINGING A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT (SECOND DEPT).

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...