Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AS TRUSTEE FOR I'HE REYEFIT OF THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS, Y W A I r, INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2OO7 1-lT2. MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH {'IiR I'IFICATES, SERIES 2007-14T2,
Plain tiff,
-
CASE DISPOSED: NO MOTION R/D: 7/7/08 SUBMISSION 8/8/08 DATE: MOTION SEQUENCE 001 MD No.: ATTORNEY PLAINTIFF FOR McCabe Weisberg & Conway, PC 145 Huguenot Street, Suite 401 New Rochelle, New York 10801 ATTORNEYS DEFENDANT FOR Stephen C. Silverberg, PLLC 626 RexCorp Plaza Uniondale, New York 1 1556
against -
1 poi1 the following papers filed and considered relative to this matter:
'Cotice of Motion dated June 20, 2008; Affimiation in Support dated May 27,2008; tlirough C annexed thereto; Affirmation in Opposition dated June 26, 2008; Exhibits 4 , ~ n d3 annexed thereto; Amended Reply Affirmation dated June 19, 2008; Exhibit A annexed thcrcto: Reply Affimiation dated July 9, 2008; Exhibits A and B annexed thereto; and upon due deliberation. i t is
t. \ h i
hits A
ORDERED, that the motion by defendants Stephen Silverberg and Fredrica Silverberg,
piirsiiant to ('PLR 321 1 , for an Order disniissing the Complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff
I he underlying action is for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon real property situate at 24 Dri\,e, Greenlawn, Suffolk County, New York. On April 27, 2008 the moving ticIciickintselecuted a consolidated Note and Mortgage covering the subject property in the total ~ i i i o u n t $479,000.00. The Note and Mortgage were in favor of Mortgage Electronic of Qcgistratton Systems, Inc. (hereinafter MERS), as named mortgagee, nominee of Countrywide i lome Imm. Inc. The consolidated Note and Mortgage were recorded in the office of the i~iflolk(oiinty Clerk on June 12, 2007.
JCiii\ 1111:
[tic defendants do not deny that they have been in default of the subject Note and \lortgagc since November 2007. Instead they seek to dismiss the Complaint by maintaining that C l t. RS did not have the authority to assign the Note and Mortgage, and that the Assignment was .iiidatcd and therefore ineffective.
MERS does not hold itself out in the Assignment dated April 30, 2008 as the owner and
older of the mortgage, but as the agent of Countrywide in executing the Assignment. MERS does not claim to serve as an attorney in fact, but as a nominee and the nomination of it serves as :he granting of the authority. The language contained within paragraph 2 of the mortgage
instrument provides that MERS ...has the right to ...take any action required by lender..., thereby L i l l o111s ~ MERS as nominee to assign the subject mortgage. Lkfendants contentions to the contrary, the subject mortgage was assigned from C oiintrywide to The Bank of New York by Assignment dated April 30, 2008, which was prior to Lhe comniencement of this action on May 6, 2008. Accordingly, The Bank of New York was the c w n u of the Note and Mortgage prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action, and is Lhcrefore the proper party to commence such action. The foregoing constitutes the Order of this Court.
L)atcd September 24, 2008
#mwE F*
HON. DENISE F. MOLIA
J.S.C.