Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » New York » Sup Ct, Allegany County » 2010 » Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v McRae
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v McRae
State: New York
Court: Supreme Court
Docket No: 2010 NY Slip Op 20020
Case Date: 01/25/2010
Plaintiff: Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co.
Defendant: McRae
Preview:
Supreme Court, Allegany County, January 25, 2010
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Steven J. Baum, P.C. (Megan B. Szeliga of counsel), for plaintiff.
{**27 Misc 3d at 248} OPINION OF THE COURT
Timothy J. Walker, J.
Procedural History
In July 2006, defendant Terry A. McRae borrowed $45,000 from First Franklin, a Division of National City Bank of Indiana, and signed a promissory note providing for monthly payments over 30 years to First Franklin (the note). This debt was secured by a mortgage on defendant's real property located in the Town of Almond, New York, recorded in the Allegany County Clerk's Office on July 11, 2006 (mortgage). Thereafter, defendant defaulted on the loan and on January 21, 2009, plaintiff commenced this foreclosure action by filing a summons and complaint (in which it alleges, inter alia, that it is the owner and holder, by assignment, of the mortgage and the note).
Thereafter, plaintiff made an application for an order of reference. By order dated September 8, 2009, this court denied the motion, without prejudice, on the following grounds: (1) plaintiff failed to submit evidence of the proper assignment or delivery of the mortgage and/or note; and (2) plaintiff failed to submit evidence of service of the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304 (exhibit A attached hereto). In response thereto, plaintiff filed a subsequent application, in which it claimed it cured these deficiencies. Plaintiff provided the court with sufficient proof that it timely served the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304. However, and for the reasons stated in this court's November 5, 2009 decision and order (exhibit B attached hereto), plaintiff failed to cure the deficiency as to the assignment of the mortgage and the note.
On or about December 7, 2009, plaintiff filed the within motion for an order for relief to reargue, requesting that the court reconsider the evidence before it on the issue of the assignment.
For the reasons which follow, the motion to reargue is granted, but the court's prior [*2]order and decision on standing shall remain undisturbed.
The Significance of Standing in Foreclosure Litigation
Download 2010_20020.pdf

New York Law

New York State Laws
New York State
    > New York City Zip Code
New York Court
    > New York Courts
New York State Tax
    > New York State Tax Forms
New York Agencies
    > New York DMV

Comments

Tips