You are here: / / THE PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE...
, ,

THE PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action:

Wells Fargo failed to establish, prima facie, that it had possession of the note prior to the commencement of the action, and thus failed to establish that it had standing to foreclose the mortgage … . Wells Fargo did not attach a copy of the note and allonge to the complaint when the action was commenced to establish, prima facie, that it had possession of the note at that time … . Moreover, the affidavit of Wells Fargo’s vice president of loan documentation was insufficient to establish that Wells Fargo possessed the note at the time the action was commenced … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Elsman, 2020 NY Slip Op 00321, Second Dept 1-15-20

 

You might also like
Overriding Village Legislative Cap on Number of Taxicab Licenses Not a Proper Subject of Mandamus Action—Applicability of Mandamus Explained
A PARTY’S FAILURE TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT RENDERED THE MEMORANDUM IMPROPERLY RECORDED AND FAILED TO GIVE PRIORITY TO A CLAIM TO THE PROPERTY.
Defendant Entitled to Hearing Re: Whether His Counsel Was Ineffective For Failing to Communicate an Earlier, More Lenient Plea Offer
THE SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ARE GENERALLY PROHIBITED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Emergency Exception to the Warrant Requirement (Re: Entry of an Apartment) Not Met
UGELL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED AS A CANDIDATE FOR TOWN SUPERVISOR; THE FACT THAT UGELL IS A TOWN JUSTICE IS NOT DISQUALIFYING; ELECTION FRAUD MUST BE PROVEN BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, LACKING HERE (SECOND DEPT).
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE VARIANCE, THE CHALLENGE WAS NOT WITHIN THE ZONE OF INTEREST OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE.
INFECTING A VICTIM WITH HIV CONSTITUTES “PHYSICAL INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF RISK FACTOR 1 RE: THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT; HOWEVER THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT IN FACT INFECTED THE VICTIM WITH HIV WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE (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

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION... DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY’S AFFIRMATION STATING HE NEVER RECEIVED THE...