You are here: / / DEFENDANT NEVER PHYSICALLY POSSESSED THE NOTE UNDERLYING THE MORTGAGE AND...
, , ,

DEFENDANT NEVER PHYSICALLY POSSESSED THE NOTE UNDERLYING THE MORTGAGE AND WAS NEVER ASSIGNED THE NOTE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE ON THE MORTGAGE; AN ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A FULLY BRIEFED MOTION ARGUMENT IS NOT A DEFAULT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant does not own the note underlying the mortgage and therefore has no right to foreclose. The Fourth Department noted that an attorney’s failure to appear at a full briefed motion argument does not constitute a default:

… [D]efendant lacks noteholder standing because the promissory note upon which defendant relies is neither endorsed in blank nor specially endorsed to defendant … . … [E]ven had the note been endorsed in blank or specially endorsed to defendant, defendant’s admitted failure to physically possess the original note would independently preclude it from foreclosing as a noteholder … . …

Nor does defendant have assignee standing. The affidavits submitted on defendant’s behalf do not aver that the subject note was ever assigned to defendant … . …

… [A]n action to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL article 15 is a proper procedural vehicle for determining defendant’s standing to foreclose (see RPAPL 1501 [1], [5] … ). Hummel v Cilici, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01690, Fourth Dept 3-11-22

Practice Point: An attorney’s failure to appear at a fully briefed motion argument is not a default.

Practice Point: A party who never physically possessed the note underlying the mortgage does not have standing to foreclose.

 

You might also like
THE FOR CAUSE CHALLENGES TO TWO JURORS WHO SAID THEY WOULD TEND TO BELIEVE THE TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS IN AN APARTMENT LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE LINKING DEFENDANT TO A BURGLARY EXCEPT A PARTIAL FINGERPRINT FOUND AT THE SCENE WHICH ONLY MATCHED 15 TO 22.5% OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF DEFENDANT’S INKED PRINT; THE BURGLARY CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HEARSAY EVIDENCE A THIRD PARTY CONFESSED TO THE MURDER MUST BE ASSESSED AND WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE THE THIRD PARTY CONFESSION MUST BE DETERMINED.
DEFENDANT MOVED TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ARGUING HIS ATTORNEY WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR WAIVING AN INTERPRETER; COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON THE MOTION; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
GAP IN BATHROOM STALL DOOR AT MCDONALD’S RESTAURANT, IN WHICH INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS PINCHED AND PARTIALLY SEVERED WHEN THE DOOR SLAMMED SHUT, WAS NOT UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS AND WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS PROVED THE “ENSUING LOSS” EXCEPTION TO THE “FAULTY WORKMANSHIP” EXCLUSION IN THE HOME INSURANCE POLICY APPLIED; PLUMBING WORK WAS FAULTY, RESULTING IN FLOODING THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE; THE WATER DAMAGE WAS COVERED UNDER THE “ENSUING LOSS” EXCEPTION TO THE “FAULTY WORKMANSHIP” EXCLUSION (FOURTH DEPT).
A SHOOTER WEARING BODY ARMOR OPENED FIRE AT A BUFFALO GROCERY STORE KILLING TEN AND INJURING MANY OTHERS; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE BODY ARMOR ALLOWED THE SHOOTER TO KILL THE SECURITY GUARD WHICH LEFT THE SHOPPERS UNPROTECTED; THE ISSUE IS WHETHER NEW YORK HAS LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE MANUFACTURER OF THE BODY ARMOR AND TWO INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS WERE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH 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 JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT, ASSESSED... RESTITUTION IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY CAP FOR LOST WAGES WAS IMPROPERLY AWARDED...