SUPREME COURT – STATE OF NEW YORK
IAS PART 10 – SUFFOLK COUNTY
HON. JOHN J.J. JONES, JR.
CHASE HOME FINANCE
LUCIUS D. PAGANO
In addition, and notwithstanding the plaintiffs failure to establish compliance with paragraph 22 of the mortgage, there are two  other issues that must be addressed on any renewed application herein. The first issue is the legal effect of the allonge that is attached to the promissory note dated Oct. 18, 2005. This allonge clearly states that the note was endorsed by United Mortgage Corp. to the order of Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. The plaintiff’s application fails to address the fact of this clear and unequivocal endorsement of the note to Greenpoint. The second issue that the plaintiff needs to address is the execution of the mortgage assignment on Dec. 15,2009 by M.E.R.S to the plaintiff, Chase Home Mortgage. The assignment was executed by George Schmergel, on behalf of M.E.R.S. It appears that this person is also the plaintiffs attorney. Therefore, on any renewed application, the plaintiff shall set forth an explanation of the apparent dual role of counsel.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court in the disposition of this exparte application
for an order of reference, which is to be marked “not signed”.
[ipaper docId=38514265 access_key=key-24ttr1afzi6cge5z6p9e height=600 width=600 /]© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.