Federal National Mortgage Association v. Youkelsone
| Decision Date | 17 March 2003 |
| Citation | 755 N.Y.S.2d 730,303 A.D.2d 546 |
| Parties | FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>NADIA YOUKELSONE, Appellant, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant Nadia Youkelsone (hereinafter the defendant) executed a note and mortgage to secure a loan of $155,700 to GFI Mortgage Bankers, Inc. (hereinafter GFI), its successors and assigns. The note and mortgage provided that they could be transferred by the lender as of right, without permission of the borrower. GFI assigned the note and mortgage to Fleet Mortgage Corporation (hereinafter Fleet Mortgage), which then merged with Washington Mutual Home Loans, Inc. (hereinafter Washington Mutual). Upon the defendant's alleged default, Washington Mutual assigned the note and mortgage, for consideration, to the plaintiff, the Federal National Mortgage Association, which commenced this foreclosure action.
The Supreme Court properly considered the assignment of mortgage proffered in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss as evidence in support of the plaintiff's claim (see CPLR 3211 [a]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]; Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 635 [1976]). Where the plaintiff is the assignee of the mortgage and the underlying note at the time the foreclosure action was commenced, the plaintiff has standing to maintain the action (see First Trust Natl. Assn. v Meisels, 234 AD2d 414 [1996]; Slutsky v Blooming Grove Inn, 147 AD2d 208 [1989]). Proof of the merger of Fleet Mortgage and Washington Mutual, or an intermediate assignment to reflect the merger, is not necessary to validate the assignment to the plaintiff (see Banking Law § 602; Barclay's Bank of N.Y. v Smitty's Ranch, 122 AD2d 323, 324 [1986]; Bank of Long Is. v Young, 101 App Div 88 [1905]).
The defendant claims that the fact that the plaintiff gave only token consideration for the assignment indicates that the assignment was fraudulent. However, where, as here, the assignment is in writing and signed by the agent of the assignor, the amount of consideration does not affect the validity of the assignment (see General Obligations Law § 5-1107; Whalen v Gerzof, 206 AD2d 688 [1994]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Youkelsone v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
...the complaint in the Foreclosure Case, and the Appellate Division affirmed. See Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Youkelsone ( Foreclosure Case Appellate Division Opinion ), 303 A.D.2d 546, 755 N.Y.S.2d 730 (2003). The Appellate Division held that Fannie Mae had standing to bring the Foreclosure C......
-
Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg
...N.Y.S.2d 615; Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Coakley, 41 A.D.3d 674, 674, 838 N.Y.S.2d 622; Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. Youkelsone, 303 A.D.2d 546, 546–547, 755 N.Y.S.2d 730; First Trust Natl. Assn. v. Meisels, 234 A.D.2d 414, 651 N.Y.S.2d 121). As a general matter, once a promi......
-
US Bank, N.A. v. Flynn
...to maintain the action" ( Countrywide Home Loans v. Gress, 68 A.D.3d 709, 888 N.Y.S.2d 914 [2d Dept. 2009]; quoting Federal Natl. Mtg. Assn. v. Youkelsone, 303 A.D.2d 546 546-547, 755 N.Y.S.2d 730 [2d Dept. 2003]; see also Wells Fargo Bank v. Marchione, 69 A.D.3d 204, 887 N.Y.S.2d 615 [2d D......
-
Youkelsone v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
...680 F.Supp.2d 144Nadia YOUKELSONE, Plaintiff, v.FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant.Civil Action No ... "owned and/or serviced" the mortgage on ... Ms. Youkelsone's real property in Brooklyn, New York. Am. Compl ... Federal National Mortgage Association[680 F.Supp.2d 146]("Fannie Mae") "with the sole ... ...