Citimortgage, Inc. v. Friedman

109 A.D.3d 573, 970 N.Y.S.2d 706
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 21, 2013·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant 1733 51st Development, LLC, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated July 25, 2011, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the appellant waived the defense of lack of standing by failing to raise that defense either in its answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint (see JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Bauer, 92 [574] AD3d 641, 642 [2012]; CitiMortgage, Inc. v Rosenthal, 88 AD3d 759, 761 [2011]). In any event, the court also correctly rejected, on the merits, the appellant’s challenge to the plaintiffs standing to maintain this action. “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 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; see US Bank N.A. v Cange, 96 AD3d 825, 826 [2012]; US. Bank N.A. v Dellarmo, 94 AD3d 746, 748 [2012]). Here, in opposition to the appellant’s prima facie showing on the motion, the plaintiff demonstrated that at the time it commenced this action, it was the holder of the mortgage and two slightly different versions of the note, both versions of which were indorsed in blank. Since the plaintiff agreed to proceed on the version of the note which the appellant concedes was validly signed and was not altered, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

The appellant’s remaining contentions either were not raised in the Supreme Court and, thus, are not properly before this Court, or need not be reached in view of the foregoing. Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Citimortgage, Inc. v. Friedman, 109 A.D.3d 573, 970 N.Y.S.2d 706 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

109 A.D.3d 573 (Citimortgage, Inc. v. Friedman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Waterfall Victoria Grantor Trust II, Series G v. Shipatsiuk
2025 NY Slip Op 05841 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Haber
2024 NY Slip Op 04158 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy. v. Theagene
201 A.D.3d 1015 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Laupot
2021 NY Slip Op 00146 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Dupass
2020 NY Slip Op 1111 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP v. Bertram
51 Misc. 3d 770 (New York Supreme Court, 2016)