U.S. Bank N.A. v. 145 Allen Legacy Ltd Liability Co.
Opinion
U.S. Bank N.A. v 145 Allen Legacy Ltd Liability Co.
2025 NY Slip Op 34414(U)
November 13, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 850259/2025 Judge: Francis A. Kahn III Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2025 01:00 P~ INDEX NO. 850259/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 70 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/17/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. FRANCIS A. KAHN, 111 PART 32 Justice --------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 850259/2025 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF WELLS FARGO MOTION DATE COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC.,MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH MOTION SEQ. NO. 003 004 CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2018-SB57,
Plaintiff,
- V -
145 ALLEN LEGACY LTD LIABILITY CO., SAM WU, NEW DECISION + ORDER ON YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING MOTION PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, TRANSIT ADJUDICATION BUREAU, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, XYZ CORPORATION,
Defendant.
----------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47 were read on this motion to/for PARTIES -ADD/SUBSTITUTE/INTERVENE
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - DEFAULT
Upon the foregoing documents, the motion is determined as follows:
This is an action to foreclose on a mortgage encumbering a parcel of commercial real property located at 145 Allen Street, New York, New York. The mortgage was given by Defendant 145 Allen Legacy Ltd Liability Co., ("Legacy") and secures a loan with an original principal amount of $2,207,200.00 that is evidenced by a note. The mortgage and note, both dated July 23, 2018, were executed by Defendant Sam Wu, now deceased, as Managing and Sole Member of Legacy. The transaction also included execution of a separate loan agreement. Concomitantly therewith, Defendant Sam Wu executed a guarantee of the indebtedness.
Now, non-party Charles Wu, the alleged son of Sam Wu, moves (Mot Seq No 3) to intervene in this action as a defendant. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Plaintiff moves (Mot Seq No 4) for a default judgment, order of reference and to amend the caption. Non-party Charles Wu opposes the motion.
850259/2025 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED Page 1 of 5 HOLDERS OF WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2018-SB57 vs. 145 ALLEN LEGACY LTD LIABILITY CO. ET AL Motion No. 003 004
1 of 5 [* 1]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2025 01:00 P~ INDEX NO. 850259/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 70 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/17/2025
CPLR § 1012 authorizes a non-party to intervene in an action as a matter of right when, inter aha, "the representation of the person's interest by the parties is or may be inadequate and the person is or may be bound by the judgment" (CPLR § 1012(a] (2]) or when "the action involves the disposition or distribution of, or the title or a claim for damages for injury to, property and the person may be affected adversely by the judgment" (CPLR § 1012(a] (3 ]). Permissive intervention in the discretion of the court is permitted "when a statute of the state confers a right to intervene in the discretion of the court, or when the person's claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact" (CPLR §1013).
Generally, "[i]ntervention is liberally allowed by courts, permitting persons to intervene in actions where they have a bona fide interest in an issue involved in that action" (Yuppie Puppy Pet Prods., Inc. v Street Smart Realty, LLC, 77 AD3d 197,201 (15 1 Dept 2010]). CPLR §1012 authorizes a non-party to intervene in an action as a matter of right when, inter alia, "the representation of the person's interest by the parties is or may be inadequate and the person is or may be bound by the judgment" (CPLR § 1012(a][2]) or when "the action involves the disposition or distribution of, or the title or a claim for damages for injury to, property and the person may be affected adversely by the judgment" (CPLR §1012(a][3]). Permissive intervention in the discretion of the court is permitted "when a statute of the state confers a right to intervene in the discretion of the court, or when the person's claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact" (CPLR § 1013). "Distinctions between intervention as of right and discretionary intervention are no longer sharply applied" (Matter of HSBC Bank US.A., 135 AD3d 534,534 [1st Dept 2016]). "In exercising its discretion, the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay the determination of the action or prejudice the substantial rights of any party" (Wells Fargo Bank, Natl. Assn. v McLean, 70 AD3d 676,677 [2d Dept 2010]).
Here, by statutory definition, Charles Wu is neither a necessary nor permissive party to this foreclosure action (CPLR §§1311 and 1313). The Mortgagor is a limited liability company, not Sam Wu. Despite Sam Wu's death five years before this action was commenced, Charles Wu failed to demonstrate he is Sam Wu's son, the court appointed fiduciary of his estate or possessed of any interest in Regency. Charles Wu is a stranger to the note and mortgage who demonstrates no interest in the real property (see US Bank NA. v Carrington, 179 AD3d 743 [2d Dept 2020]). As a result, Charles Wu has not shown any actual legal stake in this litigation and can raise no defenses herein (see Atlas MF Mezzanine Borrower, LLC v Macquarie Tex. Loan Holder LLC, 173 AD3d 608 (1st Dept 2019]; Lyman Rice, Inc. v Albion Mobile Homes, Inc., 89 AD3d 1488 [4th Dept 2011 ]).
Turning to Plaintiffs motion, "[ a]n applicant for a default judgment against a defendant must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the defaulting defendant's failure to answer or appear" (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Silverman, 178 AD3d 898, 899 [2d Dept 2019]). A plaintiff needs "only [to] allege enough facts to enable a court to determine that a viable cause of action exists" ( Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 71 (2003 ]). Plaintiff established prima facie its entitlement to a default judgment against the Defendants by submitting proof, via the affidavit of Mary Monta Adrovel, a Document Verification Specialist for NewRez D/B/A Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, as servicer for Plaintiff. Annexed to motion was a copy of a power of attorney demonstrating NewRez's authority to act for Plaintiff (see eg Deutsche Bank Natl Trust Co v Silverman, 178 AD3d 898 [2d Dept 2019]).
850259/2025 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED Page 2 of 5 HOLDERS OF WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2018-5857 vs. 145 ALLEN LEGACY LTD LIABILITY CO. ET AL Motion No. 003 004
2 of 5 [* 2]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2025 01: 00 PM] INDEX NO. 850 2 59/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 70 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/17/2025
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2025 NY Slip Op 34414(U) (U.S. Bank N.A. v. 145 Allen Legacy Ltd Liability Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.