You are here: / / Question of Fact About Whether Plaintiff Had Standing to Bring Foreclosure...

Question of Fact About Whether Plaintiff Had Standing to Bring Foreclosure Proceeding

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court, finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding.  The defendant alleged plaintiff did not have standing to bring the action. The Second Department determined the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of its standing to support summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor.  In explaining the underlying legal principles, the Second Department wrote:

“In a mortgage foreclosure action, a plaintiff has standing where it is both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced”…. “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident”…. However, “a transfer or assignment of only the mortgage without the debt is a nullity and no interest is acquired by it,” since a mortgage is merely security for a debt and cannot exist independently of it…. “Where, as here, the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief”…. Homecomings Financial, LLC v Guldi, 2013 NY Slip Op 05048, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

You might also like
A POLICE CAR RESPONDING AN EMERGENCY CALL SWERVED INTO A TURN LANE TO PASS A CAR AND STRUCK A SKATEBOARDER; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OFFICER ACTED WITH “RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS” (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT COULD HAVE PLED GUILTY TO AN OFFENSE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED.
ON APPEAL DEFENDANT CHALLENGED THE VOLUNTARINESS OF HIS GUILTY PLEA BUT THE PLEA MINUTES WERE NOT AVAILABLE; DEFENDANT DID NOT SHOW THAT RECONSTRUCTION OF THE 2013 PLEA PROCEEDING WAS IMPOSSIBLE; THEREFORE THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING (SECOND DEPT),
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK OR IN A CONSTRUCTION AREA WHEN HE WAS INJURED, HE WAS BRINGING IN SUPPLIES WHICH WERE BEING STOCKPILED AND WERE NOT FOR IMMEDIATE USE, THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS HOTEL-ROOM SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT OBLIGATED BY CONTRACT OR COURSE OF CONDUCT TO REPAIR DANGEROUS CONDITIONS AND THE LESSEE OF THE HOTEL DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE BATHROOM FLOOR IN PLAINTIFF’S ROOM; DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Unambiguous Release Is a Jural Act of High Significance Which Must Be Enforced
THE BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT). ​
THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT, QUASI CONTRACT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF SCHOOL BUS COMPANY WAS SEEKING PAYMENT FOR THE MONTHS THE SCHOOLS WERE CLOSED DUE TO COVID-19 (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

Proceeds of Sale of Property After Dissolution of Partnership Not “Profit... No Need for Proof of Agent’s Authority—Five-Day Notice Demanding Rent V...