| Saxon Mtge. Servs., Inc. v Coakley |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03578 [83 AD3d 1038] |
| April 26, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., Respondent, v CarrieCoakley, Appellant, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Fein, Such and Crane, LLP, Chestnut Ridge, N.Y. (Michael S. Hanusek of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Carrie Coakley appeals from a judgmentof foreclosure and sale of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), entered December16, 2009, which, inter alia, directed the sale of the subject premises.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In August 2005 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (hereinafter MERS), aslawful holder of the promissory note and mortgage, commenced this action to foreclose thesubject mortgage entered into by the defendant Carrie Coakley. In May 2006 MERS assigned themortgage to FV-1 and, thereafter, the mortgage was assigned approximately three more timesbefore it was ultimately assigned to the plaintiff Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. (hereinafterSaxon), in July 2008.
In September 2008 MERS moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 1018 and 1021 to substituteSaxon in its place as the plaintiff. The defendant opposed the motion, arguing, among otherthings, that MERS lacked the authority to assign the mortgage to FV-1 initially and, thus, thatSaxon could not have become a later valid assignee. The Supreme Court granted MERS' motion,determining that Saxon was the holder of both the note and mortgage. Thereafter, a judgment offoreclosure and sale was entered in Saxon's favor in December 2009.
In a prior decision and order of this Court dated June 19, 2007, we held that, at the time thisaction was commenced, MERS was the lawful holder of the promissory note and the mortgage(see Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Coakley, 41 AD3d 674 [2007]). Contrary tothe defendant's contention, MERS was free to assign the note and mortgage, absent any languagewhich expressly prohibited the assignment (see Matter of Stralem, 303 AD2d 120, 122[2003]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Dickerson, Chambersand Lott, JJ., concur.