You are here: / / PLAINTIFF BANK’S PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE...
,

PLAINTIFF BANK’S PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING; RES JUDICATA DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE THE PRIOR ACTION WAS NOT DISMISSED ON THE MERITS; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT ACTION BECAUSE THE STANDING ISSUE IS NOT THE SAME (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the prior dismissal of plaintiff bank’s foreclosure action for failure to demonstrate standing did not, under the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel, preclude the present action. The prior dismissal was not on the merits and the standing issue in the current procedure is not the same as in the prior proceeding:

Here, as the prior action was dismissed for lack of standing, without reaching the merits of the foreclosure claim itself, the defendants failed to demonstrate that “a judgment on the merits exists between the same parties involving the same subject matter” … . “To accord res judicata effect to the [judgment in the prior action] would bar a court from ever addressing the merits of plaintiff’s mortgage foreclosure claim, even if plaintiff became able to demonstrate its standing to sue, and there is nothing in the record to suggest . . . [that there are] exceptional circumstances or an unreasonable neglect to prosecute that would warrant such an extreme sanction” … . …

… [T]the defendants failed to demonstrate that the issue of whether the plaintiff has standing under the circumstances of this action was identical to the issue adjudicated in the prior action … . In the prior action, the plaintiff failed to establish that it had possession of the original endorsed note at the time that action was commenced, while in the present action, the issue is whether the plaintiff had possession of the original endorsed note at the time this action was commenced … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Pantel, 2020 NY Slip Op 00109, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

You might also like
NEW JERSEY PAROLEE’S CONSENT TO SEARCH AS A CONDITION OF PAROLE DID NOT APPLY TO A SEARCH DONE BY NEW YORK CITY POLICE IN QUEENS; STATEMENTS MADE WITHOUT MIRANDA WARNINGS, INCLUDING THE CONSENT TO SEARCH, AS WELL AS THE FRUITS OF THE SEARCH, PROPERLY SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER’S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BENEFITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED, NOTICE DID NOT SPECIFY SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF A FAILURE TO COOPERATION WITH EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AND SOME EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE, PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FILE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY IN THIS GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION CASE; THE COUNTY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS AND THE COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY PREJUDICE RESULTING FROM THE THREE-MONTH DELAY (SECOND DEPT).
Intentional Conduct Cannot Be the Basis for a Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Cause of Action
DAMAGES FOR FRAUD SHOULD HAVE BEEN BASED UPON OUT OF POCKET LOSS, NOT PROFITS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN EARNED ABSENT THE FRAUD, EVEN THOUGH RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO MORE DAMAGES UNDER THE OUT OF POCKET RULE, NO RELIEF CAN BE AFFORDED TO THE NONAPPEALING PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO INFORM THE DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION TO BE IMPOSED OR THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVALID (SECOND DEPT). ​
Requirements of Adverse Possession by “Tacking” Explained (Not Met Here)
THE FOSTER CARE AGENCY DID NOT PROVE IT MADE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO ENCOURAGE AND STRENGTHEN THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP BEFORE FILING THE PETITION TO TERMINATE MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS; PETITION DISMISSED (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

THE BANK DID NOT PROVE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND... DEFENDANT SCHOOL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF...