You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THE NOTE WAS NOT PROPERLY...
, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THE NOTE WAS NOT PROPERLY ENDORSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not establish standing to foreclose. Although the plaintiff proved it had possession of the note at the time the proceeding was brought, it did not demonstrate the note was properly endorsed:

Although the plaintiff established, prima facie, that it had possession of the original “wet ink” note prior to commencing the instant action …, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the note was properly endorsed. “Where there is no allonge or note that is either endorsed in blank or specially endorsed to the plaintiff, mere physical possession of a note at the commencement of a[n] . . . action is insufficient to confer standing or to make a plaintiff the lawful holder of a negotiable instrument for the purposes of enforcing the note” … . Here, the instant note bore no endorsements and had no allonges attached. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v PJK Holdings, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05787, Second Dept 11-20-24

Practice Point: If standing to foreclose is contested, a plaintiff must show (1) it was in possession of the note at the time the proceeding was brought and (2) the note was properly endorsed in blank or specifically to the plaintiff.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT HAD PLED GUILTY TO SCALDING A DISABLED CHILD BY BATHING HER IN WATER THAT WAS TOO HOT, AT THE SUBSEQUENT CIVIL TRIAL DEFENDANT WAS ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE THAT THE CHILD SUFFERED AN ALLERGIC REACTION AND HAD NOT BEEN SCALDED, THE DEFENSE VERDICT WAS AFFIRMED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING THAT THE GUILTY PLEA BE GIVEN COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT AND THAT THE PLAINTIFF BE PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF THE ALLERGIC REACTION WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, DESPITE SUPREME COURT’S GRANTING OF THE MOTION, THE DEFENSE VERDICT MAKES ANY FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE ERROR UNNECESSARY (SECOND DEPT).
Family Court Had Jurisdiction But New York Not a Convenient Forum
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES IN THIS MAINTENANCE-ARREARS ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​
PRIOR PUBLIC USE DOCTRINE PRECLUDED CONDEMNATION OF LAND ALREADY SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC USE BECAUSE THE PROPOSED USE WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE EXISTING PUBLIC USE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT SPECULATIVE OR CONCLUSORY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE AND LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO ADD DEFENDANT DESIGN, WHICH HAD A UNITY OF INTEREST WITH DEFENDANT EISENBACH, DESIGN’S CEO; THE PLAINTIFF HAD AGREED TO DISCONTINUE THE TIMELY ACTION AGAINST EISENBACH BASED ON MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE ON EISENBACH’S BEHALF (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THE ORDER DISMISSING THE INITIAL COMPLAINT DID NOT SPECIFY CONDUCT CONSTITUTING NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE, THE SIX-MONTH TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a) APPLIED AND THE ACTION WAS TIMELY; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY-RELATED ACTIONS WERE NOT WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS SUCH THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY DELAYS WARRANTED VACATING THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND PAYMENT OF $3000 TO DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY (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 DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF... DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE...