Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Romano

16 Citing cases

  1. TD Bank v. Hill

    928 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2019)   Cited 114 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that guarantee language, by itself, did not suffice to make a manuscript a work made for hire

    The agreement need not comply with any formalities or invoke particular language to constitute an assignment; any writing will suffice as long as "the assignor has, in some fashion, manifested an intention to make a present transfer of his rights to the assignee." Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Romano , 147 A.D.3d 1021, 1023, 48 N.Y.S.3d 237 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) (citation and emphasis omitted); Whalen v. Gerzof , 206 A.D.2d 688, 690, 615 N.Y.S.2d 465 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). The letter agreement evinces that intention in both of its principal covenants.

  2. Emigrant Bank v. Kaufman

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 64 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)   Cited 6 times

    Nevertheless, the plaintiff established, prima facie, its standing as the assignee of the note. "'[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'" (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Romano, 147 A.D.3d 1021, 1023, quoting Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d 274, 280-281; see U.S. Bank N.A. v Akande, 136 A.D.3d 887, 889). Here, in the assignment of mortgage dated July 23, 2010, Emigrant Mortgage, the original lender, assigned the note, "[t]ogether with the bond or obligation described in [the] mortgage, and the moneys due to grow due thereon with interest," to Retained.

  3. U.S. Bank v. Fowkes

    2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 32165 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)

    Where, as here, a plaintiff's standing to commence a foreclosure action is placed in issue by [a] defendant, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove its standing to be entitled to relief" (Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas v Garrison, 147 AD3d 725, 726, 46 NYS3d 185, 187 [2d Dept 2017]; Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co. v Romano, 147 AD3d 1021, 1022, 48 NYS3d 237, 239 [2d Dept 2017]; CitiMortgage, Inc. v Rosenthal, 88 AD3d 759, 931 NYS2d 638 [2d Dept. 2011][where an answer served includes the defense of standing, the plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief]).

  4. Bank of Am. v. Kanan

    2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 30955 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)

    Where plaintiff traces its standing as a holder of a negotiable instrument bearing an endorsement in blank, as the plaintiff does here, there is no requirement to establish how plaintiff came into possession of the instrument in order to be able to enforce it (Wells Fargo Bank, NA vThomas, 150 AD3d 1312, 1313, 52 NYS3d 894, 895 [2d Dept 2017]). The Second Department has also clearly determined that "[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" ... "in the absence of statute or a contract provision to the contrary, there are no prescribed formalities that must be observed to make an effective assignment" ... thus making it "sufficient if the assignor has, in some fashion, manifested an intention to make a present transfer of his rights to the assignee" (Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co. v Romano, 147 AD3d 1021, 1023, 48 NYS3d 237, 240 [2d Dept 2017][emphasis in original, internal citations omitted]).

  5. One West Bank v. Rosenberg

    189 A.D.3d 1600 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)   Cited 24 times

    In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (seeZuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562–563, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 ). Although the defendant did not waive the defense of standing (see RPAPL 1302–a ; GMAC Mtge., LLC v. Coombs, 191 A.D.3d 37, 136 N.Y.S.3d 439 [2d Dept.] ), the evidence submitted by the plaintiff demonstrated its standing, and the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (seeCenlar FSB v. Glauber, 188 A.D.3d 1141, 137 N.Y.S.3d 418 [2d Dept.] ; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Romano, 147 A.D.3d 1021, 1023, 48 N.Y.S.3d 237 ). The defendant's contention that the plaintiff was required to demonstrate its compliance with statutory and/or contractual notice requirements in order to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law is without merit (seeBank of Am., N.A. v. Cord, 168 A.D.3d 896, 899, 92 N.Y.S.3d 185 ).

  6. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co. v. Sukhu

    163 A.D.3d 748 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 36 times

    A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action where it is the holder or assignee of the underlying note, either by physical delivery or execution of a written assignment prior to the commencement of the action with the filing of the complaint (seeAurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Taylor, 25 N.Y.3d 355, 361–362, 12 N.Y.S.3d 612, 34 N.E.3d 363 ; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Cohen, 156 A.D.3d 844, 845–846, 67 N.Y.S.3d 643 ; U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Noble, 144 A.D.3d 786, 41 N.Y.S.3d 76 ; U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Collymore, 68 A.D.3d 752, 753–754, 890 N.Y.S.2d 578 ). The plaintiff demonstrated its standing based on its status as an assignee of the note as of the date the action was commenced (seeU.S. Bank N.A. v. Cox, 148 A.D.3d 962, 49 N.Y.S.3d 527 ; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Romano, 147 A.D.3d 1021, 48 N.Y.S.3d 237 ; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Akande, 136 A.D.3d 887, 26 N.Y.S.3d 164 ; Emigrant Bank v. Larizza, 129 A.D.3d 904, 13 N.Y.S.3d 129 ; Chase Home Fin., LLC v. Miciotta, 101 A.D.3d 1307, 1307–1308, 956 N.Y.S.2d 271 ), "and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident" ( U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Collymore, 68 A.D.3d at 754, 890 N.Y.S.2d 578 ; seeBank of N.Y. Mellon v. Lopes, 158 A.D.3d 662, 71 N.Y.S.3d 147 ). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

  7. DLJ Mortg. Capital, Inc. v. Pittman

    150 A.D.3d 818 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 22 times

    Although the plaintiff will ultimately be required to demonstrate that Wells Fargo had authority to assign the note on behalf of Fairbanks in order to demonstrate its standing on the basis of the written assignments (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Haller, 100 A.D.3d 680, 683, 954 N.Y.S.2d 551 ; Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d 274, 281–283, 926 N.Y.S.2d 532 ; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Weisblum, 85 A.D.3d 95, 109, 923 N.Y.S.2d 609 ), the appellant was not entitled to dismissal of the complaint based on lack of standing (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Lewis, 134 A.D.3d 764, 765, 20 N.Y.S.3d 618 ). Contrary to the appellant's further contention, the language of the assignments was " ‘broad enough to transfer the interest in the mortgage as well as the underlying debt’ " (Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Romano, 147 A.D.3d 1021, 1023, 48 N.Y.S.3d 237, quoting Chase Home Fin., LLC v. Miciotta, 101 A.D.3d 1307, 1307–1308, 956 N.Y.S.2d 271 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the appellant's motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) and (5) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

  8. 938 St. Nicholas Ave. Lender v. 936-938 Cliffcrest Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 31511 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    Parenthetically, the Court notes that Cliffcrest's objections regarding proof of Plaintiff s possession of the note are not necessarily fatal. It appears three of the four mortgage assignments contain express language assigning the note as well as the mortgage (see eg Broome Lender LLC v Empire Broome LLC, 220 A.D.3d 611 [1st Dept 2023]; US Bank Natl. Assn, v Ezugwu, 162 A.D.3d 613 [1st Dept 2018]; see also Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Romano, 147 A.D.3d 1021 [2d Dept 2017]).

  9. Six Gramercy LLC v. Westside Units 17th St., LLC

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 30672 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    After the action was commenced, Plaintiff claims it obtained the note, inter alia, via an assignment from East West, dated July 27, 2022. Contrary to Defendants' assertions, the language in the written assignment of the mortgage from MERS to East West was sufficiently broad that the note was also assigned under that document (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Romano, 147 A.D.3d 1021 [2d Dept 2017]). Specifically, the operative phrases in assignment indicate that the mortgage was "given to secure the payment of a promissory note in the original amount of One Million Four Hundred Ninety Nine Thousand and xx/100 Dollars ($1,499,000.00) (emphasis added)" and that the "Assignor does hereby assign and transfer to Assignee all rights accrued under said Mortgage and all indebtedness secured thereby (emphasis added)" (see Broome Lender LLC v Empire Broome LLC, 220 A.D.3d 611 [1st Dept 2023]; US Bank Natl. Assn, v Ezugwu, 162 A.D.3d 613 [1st Dept 2018]; see also Chase Home Fin., LLC v Miciotta, 101 A.D.3d 1307 [3d Dept 2012]; GRP Loan, LLC v Taylor, 95 A.D.3d 1172 [2d Dept 2012]).

  10. Six Gramercy LLC v. Westside Units 18th St.

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 34347 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

    Contrary to Defendants' assertions, the language in the written assignment of the mortgage from MERS to East West contained sufficiently broad language that the note was assigned thereby under that document (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Romano, 147 A.D.3d 1021 [2d Dept 2017]). Specifically, the operative phrases in assignment indicate that the mortgage was "given to secure the payment of a promissory note in the original amount of Five Hundred and Fifty Thousand and xx/100 Dollars ($550,000.00) (emphasis added)" and that the "Assignor does hereby assign and transfer to Assignee all rights accrued under said Mortgage and all indebtedness secured thereby (emphasis added)" (see Chase Home Fin., LLC v Miciotta, 101 A.D.3d 1307 [3d Dept 2012]). Since standing is assessed when an action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, supra) and East West was the Plaintiff when this action was commenced, standing is demonstrated.