Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Ridgewood Sav. Bank v. Glickman
Citation: 2021 NY Slip Op 04985Docket: 2018-11354
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; September 15, 2021; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Ridgewood Savings Bank filed a foreclosure action against defendants Mark and Susan Glickman concerning a mortgage secured by their property. The Glickmans executed a $600,000 note in favor of The New York Mortgage Company (NYMC) in 2004, which was secured by a mortgage held by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS). In 2006, they obtained a second mortgage from Ridgewood and executed a consolidation agreement, merging the two mortgages into a single $600,000 lien. Following the satisfaction of the first mortgage in 2006, Ridgewood initiated foreclosure proceedings in 2014, seeking to expunge the satisfaction and foreclose on the consolidated mortgage. The Glickmans raised several defenses, including lack of standing. The Supreme Court granted Ridgewood's motion for summary judgment, denied the Glickmans' request to amend their answer, and confirmed a referee's report, resulting in a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered on June 12, 2018. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, emphasizing that a plaintiff must prove standing, meaning it must be the holder or assignee of the underlying note when the foreclosure action is commenced. The court's ruling included an affirmation of costs awarded to the respondent. In U.S. Bank N.A. v McEntee, 176 AD3d 1136, the court defined a 'holder' as someone in possession of a negotiable instrument payable to either a bearer or an identified person. The plaintiff, U.S. Bank, established standing by demonstrating physical possession of the consolidated note attached to the complaint, countering the defendants' claims. The court noted that the defendants, by executing the Consolidated Mortgage and the Consolidated Equity Mortgage Agreement (CEMA), agreed that the new consolidated note superseded the original first and second notes, thus negating the need to prove standing for those notes. The issue around the alleged erroneous satisfaction of the first mortgage was deemed academic. The defendants did not raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the plaintiff's claims, leading to the Supreme Court's proper granting of summary judgment, striking the defendants' answer, and ordering a reference. The court also denied the defendants' request to amend their answer to include affirmative defenses based on the statute of limitations and laches, citing their failure to provide a reasonable excuse for a two-year delay in seeking the amendment and the lack of merit in the proposed defenses. The remaining arguments from the parties were either unnecessary to address or lacked merit.