First Trust National Ass'n v. Meisels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

First Trust National Ass'n v. Meisels

234 A.D.2d 414, 651 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13056

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 16, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 414 (First Trust National Ass'n v. Meisels) 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.

Bluebook

First Trust National Ass'n v. Meisels, 234 A.D.2d 414, 651 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13056 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the appellant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated August 15, 1995, which granted the plaintiffs motion to strike her answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims, and denied her cross motion to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the plaintiff was both the assignee of the mortgage and, by indorsement, the holder of the underlying note at the time the foreclosure action was commenced. Accordingly, the plaintiff had standing to maintain the action (see, Slutsky v Blooming Grove Inn, 147 AD2d 208; cf., Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537). The record also supports the determination that the notice of default adequately conformed to the provisions of the mortgage which governed such notice.

We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the appellant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated August 15, 1995, which granted the plaintiffs motion to strike her answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims, and denied her cross motion to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the plaintiff was both the assignee of the mortgage and, by indorsement, the holder of the underlying note at the time the foreclosure action was commenced. Accordingly, the plaintiff had standing to maintain the action (see, Slutsky v Blooming Grove Inn, 147 AD2d 208; cf., Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537). The record also supports the determination that the notice of default adequately conformed to the provisions of the mortgage which governed such notice.

We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 414, 651 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-trust-national-assn-v-meisels-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack