You are here: / / US BANK AS THE CURRENT ASSIGNEE OF THE MORTGAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED...
,

US BANK AS THE CURRENT ASSIGNEE OF THE MORTGAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN THIS ACTION TO DISCHARGE AND CANCEL THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined US Bank, the current assignee of the mortgage, should have been allowed to intervene in this action to cancel and discharge the mortgage pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4):

“Upon a timely motion, a person is permitted to intervene as of right in an action involving the disposition of property where that person may be adversely affected by the judgment” (… see CPLR 1012[a][3]). Additionally, “a court, in its discretion, may permit a person to intervene, inter alia, when the person’s claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact” (… see CPLR 1013). “Whether intervention is sought as a matter of right under CPLR 1012(a), or as a matter of discretion under CPLR 1013, is of little practical significance since a timely motion for leave to intervene should be granted, in either event, where the intervenor has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings” … .

Here, in support of its motion, U.S. Bank submitted evidence demonstrating, among other things, that it took possession of the note in June 2018, prior to the commencement of this action, and that it was the current assignee of the mortgage. Under the circumstances, U.S. Bank’s submissions were sufficient to demonstrate that it had a real and substantial interest in the outcome of this action … . Maggi v U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., 2023 NY Slip Op 05600, Second Dept 11-8-23

Practice Point: A timely motion to intervene should be granted where the intervenor has a real and substantial interest in the outcome.

 

You might also like
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW FATHER TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT LAY A FOUNDATION FOR AN OPINION OUTSIDE THE EXPERT’S FIELD AND DID NOT REBUT THE OPINIONS OF DEFENDANT’S EXPERT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
A JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE SALE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE IF THERE IS DOUBT ABOUT THE TITLE (HERE SUSPICION A DEED WAS FORGED); CAVEAT EMPTOR (BUYER BEWARE) IS NOT STRICTLY APPLIED TO A JUDICIAL SALE AT AUCTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF ROOFER WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE HE FELL THROUGH AN UNPROTECTED HOLE IN THE ROOF WHICH WAS COVERED ONLY BY A SHEET OF BLACK PLASTIC; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF HAD UNTIED HIS SAFETY HARNESS SO HE COULD ASSIST A CO-WORKER DID NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT RELEVANT UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE AS AN APPARENT SANCTION FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR; THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
AN ORDER DISMISSING AN ACTION DOES NOT CONCLUDE THE ACTION WHICH CAN ONLY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY FINAL JUDGMENT ENTERED BY THE CLERK; HERE, ALTHOUGH THE ACTION HAD BEEN DISMISSED BY AN ORDER, ABSENT A JUDGMENT THE ACTION REMAINED VIABLE AND THE COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTION ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT).
Shareholder in a Cooperative Apartment Corporation Had Right to Inspect Books
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT, IN A WRITING SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF AN ALTERNATE JUROR AFTER DELIBERATIONS HAD BEGUN REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL; THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS UNREASONABLE AND UNDULY SUGGESTIVE REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE COUNTS RELATED TO ONE OF THE TWO ROBBERIES (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A PIECE OF PLYWOOD COVERING A SMALL HOLE; DEFENDANT DID... HERE THE DEFENDANT SELF-STORAGE FACILITY DID NOT NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE CHANGED...