At page 1307 “both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action was commenced”6 citing cases
- MTGLQ Invs., LP v. Carmody, 2025 NY Slip Op 05854 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2025).published Our review of the language of those instruments confirms an intent in all of them to transfer the interest in the note, as well as the mortgage, and the assignments were therefore "sufficient to demonstrate [plaintiff's] status as an assig…
- MTGLQ Invs., L.P. v. Miciotta, 2022 NY Slip Op 02319 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2022).publishedIn response to defendant's challenge regarding standing, plaintiff was required to demonstrate that its predecessor in interest — JPMorgan, the original plaintiff — was "both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or…
- The Bank of New York Mellon v. McClintock, 138 A.D.3d 1372 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).published "Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation" (Chase Home Fin., LLC v Miciotta, 101 AD3d at 1307, quot…
- Onewest Bank, F.S.B. v. Mazzone, 130 A.D.3d 1399 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2015).published Given that the mortgage passes therewith “as an inseparable incident” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754 ), the assignment of the note by the bill of sale was sufficient for plaintiff to make a prima facie showing that it was ent…
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kyle, 129 A.D.3d 1168 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2015).published “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (Chase Home Fin., LLC v Miciotta, 101 AD3d at 1307 [inte…
- Bank of New York Mellon v. Cronin, 151 A.D.3d 1504 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2017).published“Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 754 [2009]; a…
At page 1308 together with all rights therein and thereto, all liens created or secured thereby, all obligations therein described, the money due and to become due thereon…1 citing case
- HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n v. Sage, 112 A.D.3d 1126 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2013).published His further allegations regarding the creation of the allonge and whether he was in default are insufficient to raise an issue of fact inasmuch as they are unsupported by any evidence and, instead, contradicted by the record (see Chase Hom…
Other citing cases
- Carbone v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00290 (E.D.N.Y July 29, 2025).
- Emigrant Bank v. Kaufman, 203 N.Y.S.3d 363 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2024).published
- Green Tree Servicing LLC v. Bormann, 2018 NY Slip Op 217 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2018).published
- Arch Bay Holdings, LLC v. Albanese, 146 A.D.3d 849 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).published
- Citibank, NA v. Abrams, 144 A.D.3d 1212 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).published
- U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Akande, 136 A.D.3d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).published
- Cl Notes LLC v. 7th Realty Holdings, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 33862(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).unpublished
- CI Notes LLC v. 7th Realty Holdings, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 31940(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).unpublished
v.
Anthony S. Miciotta, Also Known as Anthony Miciotta, and Susan M. Miciotta, Also Known as Susan Miciotta
We affirm. A plaintiff has standing in a mortgage foreclosure action “where it is both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced” (Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; accord Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Wine, 90 AD3d 1216, 1217 [2011]; CitiMortgage, Inc. v Rosenthal, 88 AD3d 759, 761 [2011]). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 754 [2009]). The first mortgage assignment, from Charter One to JPMorgan Chase Bank, states that it assigns the mortgage,[*1308] “together with all rights therein and thereto, all liens created or secured thereby, all obligations therein described, the money due and to become due thereon with interest.” The second mortgage assignment, from JPMorgan Chase Bank to plaintiff, transfers the identified mortgage “and all indebtedness secured thereby,” specifically noting that the mortgage was “given to secure the payment of a promissory note” in the amount of $227,000. “[N]o special form or language is necessary to effect an assignment as long as the language shows the intention of the owner of a right to transfer it” (Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 280-281 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). As found by Supreme Court, the language of these assignments, which were both executed and recorded prior to the commencement of this action, was broad enough to transfer the interest in the mortgage as well as the underlying debt secured by the note. Therefore, plaintiff had standing when it commenced this action because plaintiff was the assignee of both the mortgage and note at that time.*
Defendant provided nothing more than speculation to support her allegations that the mortgage assignments were fraudulent. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly rejected those allegations. As defendant did not prevail on her motion, she was not entitled to counsel fees, costs or sanctions.
Peters, P.J., Rose, Spain and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Because plaintiff has standing as an assignee of the note, we need not address the alternate argument that plaintiff has standing as the holder of the note.