From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Katz v. East-Ville Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 30, 1998
249 A.D.2d 243 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Summary

in Katz v. East-Ville Realty Co., (249 AD2d 243, 243), a "[p]laintiff's attempt to foreclose upon a mortgage in which he had no legal or equitable interest [is] without foundation in law or fact" (see Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537). Hence, Wells Fargo's attempt to foreclose upon the subject mortgage must be denied, the complaint dismissed, and McNee's cross-motion(s) to dismiss for lack of standing pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) granted.

Summary of this case from Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. McNee

Opinion

April 30, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.).


Plaintiff's attempt to foreclose upon a mortgage in which he had no legal or equitable interest was without foundation in law or fact, and the IAS Court's dismissal of the foreclosure action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) was, accordingly, appropriate ( see, Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 A.D.2d 537). Dismissal was also warranted by reason of plaintiff's failure to join the party to whom he assigned the mortgage and who, he concedes, possesses a security interest in the property ( see, CPLR 3211 [a] [10]).

We see no reason to disturb the court's imposition of sanctions upon plaintiff, an attorney, and his counsel, given the patently frivolous nature of plaintiff's foreclosure claim. Absent a conspicuous modification of existing law, the claim was clearly not viable ( see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

Katz v. East-Ville Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 30, 1998
249 A.D.2d 243 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

in Katz v. East-Ville Realty Co., (249 AD2d 243, 243), a "[p]laintiff's attempt to foreclose upon a mortgage in which he had no legal or equitable interest [is] without foundation in law or fact" (see Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537). Hence, Wells Fargo's attempt to foreclose upon the subject mortgage must be denied, the complaint dismissed, and McNee's cross-motion(s) to dismiss for lack of standing pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) granted.

Summary of this case from Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. McNee

noting that an assignor must join a party to whom it assigned the mortgage, as that party "possesses a security interest in the property"

Summary of this case from U.S. Bank N.A. v. V.M.E.P. Corp.
Case details for

Katz v. East-Ville Realty Co.

Case Details

Full title:HARRY KATZ, Appellant, v. EAST-VILLE REALTY Co., Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 30, 1998

Citations

249 A.D.2d 243 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
672 N.Y.S.2d 308

Citing Cases

LASALLE BANK NATL. ASSN. v. LAMY

Relying on the December 29, 2005 assignment of the note and mortgage issued by MERS as nominee of the…

Fremont Inv. Loan v. Laroc

In addition, defendants Laroc and Nasta have failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense to the action. To…