U.S. Bank N.A. v. Lloyd-Lewis

205 A.D.3d 838, 165 N.Y.S.3d 874, 2022 NY Slip Op 03139
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 11, 2022
DocketIndex No. 500365/18
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 205 A.D.3d 838 (U.S. Bank N.A. v. Lloyd-Lewis) 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
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Lloyd-Lewis, 205 A.D.3d 838, 165 N.Y.S.3d 874, 2022 NY Slip Op 03139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

U.S. Bank N.A. v Lloyd-Lewis (2022 NY Slip Op 03139)
U.S. Bank N.A. v Lloyd-Lewis
2022 NY Slip Op 03139
Decided on May 11, 2022
Appellate Division, Second 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 on May 11, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
LARA J. GENOVESI, JJ.

2020-02235
(Index No. 500365/18)

[*1]U.S. Bank National Association, etc., respondent,

v

Janett Lloyd-Lewis, etc., appellant, et al., defendants.


Law Office of Paul R. Kenney, LLC, New York, NY, for appellant.

Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLP, New York, NY (Mitchell S. Kurtz of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Janett Lloyd-Lewis appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Noach Dear, J.), dated October 30, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant, to strike her answer, and for an order of reference.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On May 31, 2006, Garth C. Lewis (hereinafter Lewis) borrowed the sum of $579,500 from First Franklin, a Division of National City Bank of Indiana, secured by a mortgage on a two-family dwelling in Brooklyn. Lewis was listed as sole borrower on the note and mortgage. The note was endorsed, on its last page, by the original lender, First Franklin, a Division of National City Bank of Indiana, to First Franklin Finance Corporation, and further endorsed by First Franklin Finance Corporation in blank.

On February 26, 2013, Lewis died. The defendant Janett Lloyd-Lewis (hereinafter the defendant) was appointed administrator of Lewis's estate. In January 2018, the plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose the mortgage against the defendant, among others. A copy of the note, endorsed in blank, was annexed to the complaint. The defendant, acting pro se, asserted lack of standing and failure to comply with RPAPL 1303 and 1304 as affirmative defenses in her answer.

In October 2018, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant, to strike her answer, and for an order of reference. By order dated October 30, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion. The defendant appeals, and we affirm.

The plaintiff established standing by annexing a copy of the original note, endorsed in blank, to the summons and complaint at the time the action was commenced (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Desir, 188 AD3d 657, 658; U.S. Bank N.A v Offley, 170 AD3d 1240, 1241). Further, [*2]the plaintiff established that it provided notice pursuant to RPAPL 1303 by submitting copies of the affidavits of service establishing proper service upon the defendant of the notice required by the statute (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Blackman, 203 AD3d 698). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the defendant, who was not a borrower, was not entitled to notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304 (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Shah, 185 AD3d 794, 796; Charles Schwab Bank v Winitch, 179 AD3d 1003, 1005-1006; cf. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Forman, 176 AD3d 663, 666).

The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be addressed in light of our determination.

DILLON, J.P., DUFFY, MALTESE and GENOVESI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Benton
2025 NY Slip Op 04720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
PNC Bank, N.A. v. Mone
2024 NY Slip Op 05120 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Swanson
2024 NY Slip Op 04952 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Goichman
2024 NY Slip Op 04414 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Castillo
2024 NY Slip Op 02513 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Reddy
199 N.Y.S.3d 123 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Congregation Khal Chasidei Skwera, Inc.
213 A.D.3d 814 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. Raja
2022 NY Slip Op 06912 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
205 A.D.3d 838, 165 N.Y.S.3d 874, 2022 NY Slip Op 03139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-bank-na-v-lloyd-lewis-nyappdiv-2022.