Deustche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Procel

192 N.Y.S.3d 107, 217 A.D.3d 623, 2023 NY Slip Op 03542
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 29, 2023·No. Index No. 380871/11 Appeal No. 567 Case No. 2022-00962·Published

Opinion

Deustche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Procel (2023 NY Slip Op 03542)
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

[*1]Deustche Bank National Trust Company etc., Plaintiff-Appellant,

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

Deustche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Procel, 192 N.Y.S.3d 107, 217 A.D.3d 623, 2023 NY Slip Op 03542 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023).

192 N.Y.S.3d 107 (Deustche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Procel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Sherwood
2020 NY Slip Op 1585 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Endeavor Funding Corp. v. Allen
102 A.D.3d 593 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Whittemore v. Yeo
112 A.D.3d 475 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Goldberger
179 N.Y.S.3d 595 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)