Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
FIRST TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., Respondent,v.Fanny MEISELS, a/k/a Fanny Elkon, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
Dec. 16, 1996.
Plaintiff sued to foreclose mortgage. The Supreme Court, Kings County, Garry, J., granted plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims, and denied defendant's cross-motion to dismiss. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that: (1) plaintiff, as both assignee of mortgage and, by indorsement, the holder of underlying note at time foreclosure action was commenced, had standing to maintain foreclosure action, and (2) notice of default adequately conformed to provisions of mortgage which governed such notice.
Mortgages 417266k417 Most Cited Cases
Plaintiff, as both the assignee of mortgage and, by indorsement, the holder of underlying note at time foreclosure action was commenced, had standing to maintain foreclosure action. **122 Sol Mermelstein, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., Garden City, for respondent.
Before MILLER, J.P., and RITTER, PIZZUTO and SANTUCCI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
*414 In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the appellant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated August 15, 1995, which granted the plaintiff's motion to strike her answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims, and denied her cross motion to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against her.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the plaintiff was both the assignee of the mortgage and, by indorsement, the holder of the underlying note at the time the foreclosure action was commenced. Accordingly, the plaintiff had standing to maintain the action (see, Slutsky v. Blooming Grove Inn, 147 A.D.2d 208, 542 N.Y.S.2d 721; cf., Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 A.D.2d 537, 536 N.Y.S.2d 92). The record also supports the determination that the notice of default adequately conformed to the provisions of the mortgage which governed such notice.
We have considered the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
651 N.Y.S.2d 121, 234 A.D.2d 414
END OF DOCUMENT