You are here: / / THE BANK WHICH COMMENCED THE 2006 FORECLOSURE HAD ALREADY ASSIGNED THE...
,

THE BANK WHICH COMMENCED THE 2006 FORECLOSURE HAD ALREADY ASSIGNED THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE AND DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT START RUNNING IN 2006; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined that the bank (Option One) which commenced foreclosure proceedings in 2006 did not have standing to do so because it had already assigned the note and mortgage (to Residential). Therefore the six-year statute of limitations did not start to run in 2006. The dissent argued Option One, as the original lender, did in fact have standing. Much of the majority’s decision was devoted to demonstrating the dissenting argument was not valid:

We disagree with our dissenting colleague’s assertion that Option One, after its assignment of the note and mortgage to Residential, continued to have standing to commence and prosecute the 2006 action. Our dissenting colleague misreads the holding in Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Matamoro (200 AD3d 79, 90-91), wherein we held that there are three bases to establish standing in residential foreclosure actions. There is no dispute with regard to the second two bases for finding standing; to wit: a plaintiff’s physical possession of the note prior to commencement of the foreclosure action with an allonge or endorsement in blank or to the plaintiff (second basis), or an assignment of the note to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action (third basis). However, while the Matamoro Court described the first basis for standing as being “where the plaintiff is the original lender in direct privity with the defendant” … , the second part of the description explained that “[t]he direct privity is rarely seen in residential mortgage foreclosure litigations, given the nature of the home lending business where financial instruments are routinely sold, assigned, or ‘bundled’ from one institution to another between the time funds are initially dispersed by a lender and the commencement of a later foreclosure action” … .  The Matamoro Court’s holding and description of the nature of the market falls squarely into the facts of this case. Contrary to our dissenting colleague’s rationale that the original lender retains the right to sue on a note that it has fully assigned, we have held that”‘[a]n absolute assignment of a bond and mortgage transfers to the assignee all rights theretofore conferred upon the assignor-mortgagee to enforce the bond and mortgage'” … . 21st Mtge. Corp. v Rudman, 2022 NY Slip Op 00031, Second Dept 1-5-22

 

You might also like
THE DEFENDANT “DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK STATE’S” INSURERS HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE ACCIDENT; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE THE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER UNDER POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLACED IN RESIDENTIAL CORRECTIONS FACILITIES PENDING THE AVAILABILITY OF COMMUNITY HOUSING THAT IS MORE THAN 1000 FEET FROM A SCHOOL (SECOND DEPT).
ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED, THEREFORE THE ACTION COULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).
PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING THAT THE INSURER WAS OBLIGATED TO REIMBURSE THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES INCURRED IN DEFENDING THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PROBATE PETITION PROPERLY DISMISSED; WITNESSES DID NOT READ ATTESTATION CLAUSE, EVIDENCE SOME WILL PAGES MISSING AT TIME OF EXECUTION.
ALTHOUGH A COURT HAS THE DISCRETIONARY “INTERESTS OF JUSTICE” POWER TO VACATE ITS OWN ORDER, THAT POWER SHOULD ONLY BE EXERCISED IN UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PRESENT HERE (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT WHOSE ANSWER HAD BEEN STRUCK WAS NOT ENTITLED TO FURTHER DISCOVERY PRIOR TO THE INQUEST ON DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).
ONE DEFENDANT BREACHED A CONTRACT; THE OTHER DEFENDANT TORTIOUSLY INTERFERED WITH PLAINTIFF’S PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONS; THE JURY AWARDED SEPARATE DAMAGE-AMOUNTS FOR EACH DEFENDANT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD BOTH DEFENDANTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF DAMAGES (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

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE INTERVENTION BY THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT... IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, NO APPEAL LIES FROM A JUDGE’S DECLINING...