Flushing Sav. Bank v. Latham
| Decision Date | 04 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | 2014-00476, Index No. 20776/09. |
| Citation | 32 N.Y.S.3d 206,139 A.D.3d 663,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 03468 |
| Parties | FLUSHING SAVINGS BANK, plaintiff, v. Chester LATHAM, respondent; BNH XV, LLC, et al., nonparty-appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
139 A.D.3d 663
32 N.Y.S.3d 206
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 03468
FLUSHING SAVINGS BANK, plaintiff,
v.
Chester LATHAM, respondent;
BNH XV, LLC, et al., nonparty-appellants.
2014-00476, Index No. 20776/09.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 4, 2016.
Claude Castro & Associates PLLC, New York, N.Y. (D. Paul Martin of counsel), for nonparty-appellants.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, SHERI S. ROMAN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, nonparty-appellants BNH XV, LLC, and Maxim Credit Corp. appeal from an order
of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated October 17, 2013, which, in effect, denied their motion for leave to be substituted as the plaintiffs in the action and to amend the caption accordingly, for summary judgment on the complaint, to strike the defendant's amended answer, and to confirm a referee's report dated September 17, 2010.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof, in effect, denying that branch of the motion of the nonparty-appellants BNH XV, LLC, and Maxim Credit Corp. for leave to be substituted as the plaintiffs in the action and to amend the caption accordingly, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings, including the amendment of the caption in accordance herewith.
In 2007, the defendant executed an adjustable rate note to borrow the sum of $372,000 from Flushing Savings Bank (hereinafter Flushing). The note was secured by a mortgage on the property located at 116 Hopkinson Avenue, Brooklyn (hereinafter the subject premises). The mortgage documents described the subject premises as a “1–3 family with store/office.” The loan and mortgage documents also indicated that
the defendant did not reside at the subject premises, but instead resided at another address in Brooklyn.
In August 2009, Flushing commenced this action against the defendant to foreclose the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n v. Ozcan
...RPAPL 1304 (see RPAPL 1304[5] ; cf. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Venture, 148 A.D.3d 1269, 48 N.Y.S.3d 824 ; Flushing Sav. Bank v. Latham, 139 A.D.3d 663, 665, 32 N.Y.S.3d 206 ; Prompt Mtge. Providers of N. Am., LLC v. Singh, 132 A.D.3d 833, 834, 18 N.Y.S.3d 668 ). Furthermore, even if the......
-
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Burke
...Mtge. Corp. v. Celestin, 130 A.D.3d 703, 11 N.Y.S.3d 871 [2d Dept.2015] ; see also see FlushingSavings Bank v. Latham, 139 A.D.3d 663, 32 N.Y.S.3d 206 [2d Dept.2016] ). A foreclosing plaintiff has standing if it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time that th......
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Powell
...A.D.3d 984, 985, 114 N.Y.S.3d 398, citing US Bank N.A. v. Richard, 151 A.D.3d 1001, 1003, 57 N.Y.S.3d 509, and Flushing Sav. Bank v. Latham, 139 A.D.3d 663, 665, 32 N.Y.S.3d 206 ), or alternatively, that the plaintiff strictly complied with service provisions set forth in the statute (see U......
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Crimi
...loan" as defined in RPAPL 1304(6)(a) (see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Richard, 151 A.D.3d 1001, 1003, 57 N.Y.S.3d 509 ; Flushing Sav. Bank v. Latham, 139 A.D.3d 663, 665, 32 N.Y.S.3d 206 ). Since neither affidavit submitted by the plaintiff alleged that the respective affiant was "personally familiar......