OneWest Bank FSB v. Carey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

OneWest Bank FSB v. Carey

104 A.D.3d 444, 960 N.Y.S.2d 306

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

DecidedMarch 7, 2013

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 104 A.D.3d 444 (OneWest Bank FSB v. Carey) 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

OneWest Bank FSB v. Carey, 104 A.D.3d 444, 960 N.Y.S.2d 306 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered October 7, 2011, which denied defendant Gregory Carey’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[445]*445“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” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2d Dept 2009]). Here, the evidence submitted in opposition to defendant’s motion, including the affidavit from plaintiffs employee, established that an assignment of the note had been effectuated by physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the instant action (see Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co. NA v Sachar, 95 AD3d 695 [1st Dept 2012]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions, including the challenges to the evidence submitted in opposition to the motion, and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Acosta, Freedman and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered October 7, 2011, which denied defendant Gregory Carey’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[445]*445“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” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2d Dept 2009]). Here, the evidence submitted in opposition to defendant’s motion, including the affidavit from plaintiffs employee, established that an assignment of the note had been effectuated by physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the instant action (see Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co. NA v Sachar, 95 AD3d 695 [1st Dept 2012]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions, including the challenges to the evidence submitted in opposition to the motion, and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Acosta, Freedman and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.3d 444, 960 N.Y.S.2d 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/onewest-bank-fsb-v-carey-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack