Bank v. Emmanuel
| Decision Date | 26 April 2011 |
| Citation | 921 N.Y.S.2d 320,83 A.D.3d 1047,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 03586 |
| Parties | U.S. BANK, National Association, etc., appellant,v.Arriana EMMANUEL, etc., et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Hogan Lovells U.S., LLP, New York, N.Y. (David Dunn, Allison J. Schoenthal, Renee Garcia, and Tracy L. Hresko of counsel), for appellant.MARK C. DILLON, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, RUTH C. BALKIN, and RANDALL T. ENG, JJ.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated May 11, 2010, as denied its ex parte motion pursuant to CPLR 314 and 315, inter alia, to direct service upon the defendant Arriana Emmanuel by publication and, sua sponte, directed the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice and cancelled the notice of pendency.
ORDERED that the application pursuant to CPLR 5704(a) is granted, without costs or disbursements, and the ex parte motion pursuant to CPLR 314 and 315 is granted.
The defendant Arriana Emmanuel (hereinafter the defendant) defaulted on her mortgage loan. On July 30, 2009, the plaintiff, allegedly the holder of the mortgage and note, commenced this action to foreclose the mortgage. In January 2010 the plaintiff moved ex parte pursuant to CPLR 314 and 315 to direct service upon the defendant by publication and for certain other related relief. The Supreme Court denied the motion without considering its merits and, sua sponte, directed the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice and cancelled the notice of pendency, concluding that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. We reverse the order insofar as appealed from.
The proof submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion demonstrated that service could not be made upon the defendant by another prescribed method with due diligence ( see CPLR 315) and that she was evading service. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court should have granted the ex parte motion, inter alia, for service by publication ( see Dime Sav. Bank of N.Y. v. Mancini, 184 A.D.2d 989, 990, 585 N.Y.S.2d 603; cf. Contimortgage Corp. v. Isler, 48 A.D.3d 732, 734–735, 853 N.Y.S.2d 162; State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Coakley, 16 A.D.3d 403, 790 N.Y.S.2d 412; OCI Mtge. Corp. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Pietranico
...819, 886 N.Y.S.2d 619 [2d Dept. 2009] [ standing issue unavailing on application to vacate default judgment ]; US Bank, NA v. Emmanuel, 83 A.D.3d 1047, 921 N.Y.S.2d 320 [2d Dept. 2011]; [33 Misc.3d 535] Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Hussain, 78 A.D.3d 989, 912 N.Y.S.2d 595 [2d Dept. 2010......
-
J & JT Holding Corp. v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.
...A.D.3d 766, 767, 980 N.Y.S.2d 535 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Taher, 104 A.D.3d 815, 817, 962 N.Y.S.2d 301 ; U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Emmanuel, 83 A.D.3d 1047, 1048, 921 N.Y.S.2d 320 ), and Deutsche Bank failed to exercise any diligence by timely seeking leave to appeal from that order (see CPLR 570......
-
BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP v. Bertram
...A.D.3d 837, 951 N.Y.S.2d 900 [2d Dept.2012] ; U.S. Bank Natl. Ass'n. v. Denaro, 98 A.D.3d 964, 950 N.Y.S.2d 581; U.S. Bank v. Emmanuel, 83 A.D.3d 1047, 921 N.Y.S.2d 320 [2d Dept.2011] ; 30 N.Y.S.3d 494 Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v. Mastropaolo, 42 A.D.3d 239, 242–244, 837 N.Y.S.2d 247, su......
-
GMAC Mortg., LLC v. Winsome Coombs
...case law holding that "a party's lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect" ( U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Emmanuel, 83 A.D.3d 1047, 1048–1049, 921 N.Y.S.2d 320 ; see Matter of Fossella v. Dinkins, 66 N.Y.2d 162, 495 N.Y.S.2d 352, 485 N.E.2d 1017 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Taher, 104......