Deustche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Procel
This text of 192 N.Y.S.3d 107 (Deustche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Procel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
| Deustche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Procel |
| 2023 NY Slip Op 03542 |
| Decided on June 29, 2023 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided and Entered: June 29, 2023
Before: Kapnick, J.P., Friedman, Gesmer, González, Higgitt, JJ.
Index No. 380871/11 Appeal No. 567 Case No. 2022-00962
v
Bernarda Procel et al., Defendants-Respondents, Continente Corporation et al., Defendants.
Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners PLLC, Westbury (Joseph F. Battista of counsel), for appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered April 6, 2016, which denied plaintiff's motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
The court erred in finding that triable issues of fact precluded granting plaintiff a judgment of foreclosure and sale. Having failed to timely answer the complaint or make a pre-answer motion to dismiss, and having made no attempt to vacate their default or provide a reasonable excuse for the default, defendants waived their defense that plaintiff lacked standing to bring this action (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Goldberger, 211 AD3d 1077, 1078 [2d Dept 2022]; Aurora Loan Services, LLC v Jemal, 205 AD3d 661, 663 [2d Dept 2022]). Moreover, defendants' default precluded them from asserting that plaintiff's assignor violated Banking Law § 6-l (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Sherwood, 181 AD3d 469 [1st Dept 2020]; Whittemore v Yeo, 112 AD3d 475, 476 [1st Dept 2013]), which, in any event, was not in effect in that form at the time the loan was made in 2006 (Endeavor Funding Corp. v Allen, 102 AD3d 593, 594 [1st Dept 2013]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: June 29, 2023
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
192 N.Y.S.3d 107, 217 A.D.3d 623, 2023 NY Slip Op 03542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deustche-bank-natl-trust-co-v-procel-nyappdiv-2023.