Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Webster | Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence this action. - FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Webster | Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence this action.

Posted on24 August 2016.

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Webster | Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence this action.

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Webster (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

View original: From the court   |   Our backup

Here, although the plaintiff appended a copy of the note to the complaint, the plaintiff’s submission of two different copies of the note with different endorsements in support of its motion for summary judgment fails to eliminate a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of the original note at the time the action was commenced,.   Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence this action.

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

Related posts:

  1. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Gilbert | NY Appeals Court – plaintiff failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, because it did not eliminate triable issues of fact regarding whether it had standing as the lawful holder or assignee of the subject note on the date it commenced the action Decided on August 27, 2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE...
  2. U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Steinberg | NYSC – MERS Mortgage Assignment does not constitute evidence of the Morgan Stanley Mortgage Trust’s prima facie standing to foreclose Decided on November 29, 2013 Supreme Court, Kings County  ...
  3. JP Morgan Chase Natl. Bank v Fashakin | NYSC – In the instant case, plaintiff identified itself as the creditor, maintained the action in its own name and has failed to offer any evidence that the owner of the note and mortgage has delegated authority to commence and maintain this action Decided on February 24, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County JP...
  4. U.S. Bank N.A. v Friedman | NYSC – Plaintiff having failed to establish that it owned the Note on the date this case was commenced, it does not have standing to maintain this action SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF...
  5. Deutsche Bank v Idarecis | NY Appeals Court – the affidavit failed to establish that the plaintiff had physical possession of the note prior to commencing the action Decided on November 18, 2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE...

This post was written by:

- who has written 11558 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author


Leave a Reply


Advert

Archives

Please Support Me!







Write your comment within 199 characters.

All Of These Are Troll Comments

175,750 spam blocked by Akismet