Citimortgage Inc. v. Rosenthal
| Decision Date | 11 October 2011 |
| Citation | 88 A.D.3d 759,931 N.Y.S.2d 638,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07198 |
| Parties | CITIMORTGAGE, INC., respondent,v.Leah ROSENTHAL, appellant, et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jeremy Rosenberg, New York, N.Y., for appellant.Steven J. Baum, P.C., Amherst, N.Y. (Casey E. Callanan of counsel), for respondent.MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RANDALL T. ENG, SANDRA L. SGROI, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Leah Rosenthal appeals from an amended order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Jamieson, J.), entered August 12, 2010, which, inter alia, denied her motion, among other things, to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale dated July 1, 2009.
ORDERED that the amended order is affirmed, with costs.
In 1988 the defendant Leah Rosenthal (hereinafter the defendant) executed a note to borrow the sum of $150,000 from Gelt Funding, Inc. (hereinafter Gelt Funding). The note was secured by a mortgage on the defendant's property located in Monsey, New York. Gelt Funding thereafter assigned the mortgage and note to First Nationwide Bank. In 1994 First Nationwide Bank assigned the mortgage and note to First Nationwide Corporation. On April 3, 2008, First Nationwide Corporation assigned the mortgage and note to the plaintiff, CitiMortgage, Inc. (hereinafter CitiMortgage).
On July 23, 2008, CitiMortgage commenced this foreclosure action, alleging that it was the holder of the mortgage and note, and that the defendant had defaulted upon her payment obligation as of March 1, 2008. In August 2008 the defendant interposed a verified answer, wherein she alleged that the complaint “failed to state a basis for a claim upon which relief can be granted.” In April 2009 the Supreme Court granted CitiMortgage's motion for summary judgment and to appoint a referee to compute the sums due and owing under the note and mortgage. On July 1, 2009, the Supreme Court signed a judgment of foreclosure and sale. In or around May 2010, CitiMortgage assigned the mortgage and note to PennyMac Loan Services LLC (hereinafter PennyMac). The public sale of the mortgaged premises was scheduled to take place on July 21, 2010, but was stayed by the Supreme Court when it signed the defendant's order to show cause seeking, inter alia, to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale. The defendant appeals from the order denying her motion, and we affirm.
In support of her motion, the defendant proffered, for the first time, a purported assignment of the mortgage and note dated August 1, 1990, from First Nationwide Bank to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. She contended that this unrecorded assignment demonstrated that CitiMortgage had no standing to commence this action. Specifically, she maintained that the 1990 assignment invalidated the 1994 assignment from First Nationwide Bank to First Nationwide Corporation and the 2008 assignment from First Nationwide Corporation to CitiMortgage because, after August 1990, First Nationwide Bank had no rights under the note and mortgage to assign. The defendant failed to explain how and when she obtained the 1990 assignment document or why it was unrecorded.
“In order to commence a foreclosure action, the plaintiff must have a legal or equitable interest in the subject mortgage” ( Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Gress, 68 A.D.3d 709, 709, 888 N.Y.S.2d 914). “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” ( Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d 274, 279, 926 N.Y.S.2d 532; see U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Collymore, 68 A.D.3d 752, 753, 890 N.Y.S.2d 578). Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief ( see Bank of N.Y. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moise v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC (In re Moise)
...of standing because they failed to answer the complaint or file a pre-answer motion to dismiss); Citi M ortgage, Inc. v. Rosenthal , 88 A.D.3d 759, 931 N.Y.S.2d 638, 639–40 (2d Dep't 2011) (motion to vacate judgment of foreclosure and sale properly denied as defendants did not make pre-answ......
-
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Eitani
...substitution" (Central Fed. Sav. v. 405 W. 45th St., 242 A.D.2d at 512, 662 N.Y.S.2d 489 ; see CPLR 1018 ; CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Rosenthal, 88 A.D.3d 759, 761, 931 N.Y.S.2d 638 ; see also HSBC Guyerzeller Bank AG v. Chascona N.V., 66 A.D.3d 488, 489, 887 N.Y.S.2d 43 ). Wells Fargo, as the a......
-
Midfirst Bank v. Agho
...and note by a proper assignment ( see Citimortgage, Inc. v. Stosel, 89 A.D.3d 887, 888, 934 N.Y.S.2d 182; CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Rosenthal, 88 A.D.3d 759, 761, 931 N.Y.S.2d 638; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Barnett, 88 A.D.3d 636, 637, 931 N.Y.S.2d 630; Wells Fargo Bank v. Marchione, 69 ......
-
FTBK Investor II LLC v. Genesis Holding LLC
...A.D.3d at 748, 942 N.Y.S.2d 122 ; Citimortgage, Inc. v. Stosel, 89 A.D.3d at 888, 934 N.Y.S.2d 182 ; CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Rosenthal, 88 A.D.3d 759, 761, 931 N.Y.S.2d 638 (2d Dep't 2011). Defendants waive lack of standing as a defense by failing to raise it in an answer or a pre-answer moti......