Wells Fargo Bank v. Edwards

95 A.D.3d 692, 945 N.Y.S.2d 44
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 22, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 95 A.D.3d 692 (Wells Fargo Bank v. Edwards) 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
Wells Fargo Bank v. Edwards, 95 A.D.3d 692, 945 N.Y.S.2d 44 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered October 26, 2010, which denied defendant Sheila Edwards’s cross motion to dismiss the summons and complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction based upon improper service, and granted plaintiffs motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, to confirm the referee’s report and for attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly found that defendant’s allegations were insufficient to rebut plaintiffs prima facie showing of proper service. Defendant’s denial of service did not controvert the veracity or content of the affidavit of service so as to require a traverse hearing (see generally NYCTL 1998-1 Trust & Bank of N.Y. v Rabinowitz, 7 AD3d 459, 460 [2004]). In addition, her correspondence to her mortgage loan servicer made shortly after the date of service, indicating that she sought to recommence payment of her mortgage in order to suspend the pending foreclosure action under the instant index number, contradicted her claim that she was not served with the summons and complaint.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not err in determining that she waived the issue of standing by failing to timely appear or answer (see CPLR 3211 [a] [3]; [e]). In any event, the action was expressly maintained in plaintiffs capacity as trustee under a pooling and servicing agreement dated October 1, 2006, before the date of the commencement of the [693]*693action (see CWCapital Asset Mgt. LLC v Charney-FPG 114 41st St, LLC, 84 AD3d 506 [2011]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Related

Merritt Ave., LLC v. Empire Scaffolding Sys., Inc.
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023
U.S. Equities Corp. v. Brito
73 Misc. 3d 148(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Thompson
2018 NY Slip Op 5403 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
NYCTL 2012-A Trust v. Colbert
2017 NY Slip Op 114 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jones
139 A.D.3d 520 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Cohen v. CASSM Realty Corp.
54 Misc. 3d 256 (New York Supreme Court, 2016)
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Bernabel
125 A.D.3d 541 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
FTBK Investor II LLC v. Genesis Holding LLC
48 Misc. 3d 274 (New York Supreme Court, 2014)
Kearney v. Kearney
42 Misc. 3d 360 (New York Supreme Court, 2013)
Perilla v. Carchi
100 A.D.3d 429 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 A.D.3d 692, 945 N.Y.S.2d 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-fargo-bank-v-edwards-nyappdiv-2012.