HSBC Bank USA v. Hernandez

92 A.D.3d 843, 939 N.Y.2d 120
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 21, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by49 cases

This text of 92 A.D.3d 843 (HSBC Bank USA v. Hernandez) 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
HSBC Bank USA v. Hernandez, 92 A.D.3d 843, 939 N.Y.2d 120 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

In order to commence a foreclosure action, a plaintiff must have a legal or equitable interest in the mortgage. A plaintiff has standing where it is the holder or assignee of both the subject mortgage and of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Weisblum, 85 AD3d 95, 108 [2011]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, 69 AD3d 204, 207 [2009]; US Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]). An assignment of a mortgage without assignment of the underlying note or bond is a nullity, and no interest is acquired by it (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Barnett, 88 AD3d 636, 637 [2011]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at [844]*844280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Weisblum, 85 AD3d at 108).

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence the action. The plaintiffs evidence did not demonstrate that the note was physically delivered to it prior to the commencement of the action. The affidavit from the plaintiffs servicing agent did not give any factual details of a physical delivery of the note and, thus, failed to establish that the plaintiff had physical possession of the note prior to commencing this action (see Citimortgage, Inc. v Stosel, 89 AD3d 887, 888 [2011]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Barnett, 88 AD3d at 637; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Weisblum, 85 AD3d at 108; US Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

However, the Supreme Court should not have, in effect, searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the defendants dismissing the complaint without prejudice, as the parties’ submissions failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Dillon, J.E, Florio, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

Related

US Bank Trust N.A. v. Friedman
2024 NY Slip Op 33820(U) (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2024)
Lochan v. H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc.
187 N.Y.S.3d 780 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
US Bank N.A. v. Nelson
2019 NY Slip Op 494 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
McCormack v. Maloney
2018 NY Slip Op 2385 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
US Bank National Ass'n v. Brody
2017 NY Slip Op 8873 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Chanin
2016 NY Slip Op 8064 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mayer
2016 NY Slip Op 8069 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Ehrenfeld
2016 NY Slip Op 7639 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Cunningham
142 A.D.3d 634 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jones
139 A.D.3d 520 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
LaSalle Bank, N.A. v. Zaks
138 A.D.3d 788 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Bank of America, N.A. v. O'Gorman
137 A.D.3d 1179 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
JFK Family Ltd. Partnership v. Millbrae Natural Gas Development Fund 2005, L.P.
132 A.D.3d 729 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Onewest, F.S.B. v. Goddard
131 A.D.3d 1028 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Loancare v. Firshing
130 A.D.3d 787 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Emigrant Bank v. Larizza
129 A.D.3d 904 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Aurora Loan Services v. Monique Taylor
34 N.E.3d 363 (New York Court of Appeals, 2015)
Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Anderson
129 A.D.3d 665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Bank of America, N.A. v. Paulsen
125 A.D.3d 909 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Guy
125 A.D.3d 845 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 A.D.3d 843, 939 N.Y.2d 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hsbc-bank-usa-v-hernandez-nyappdiv-2012.