| Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Codio |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03131 [94 AD3d 1040] |
| April 24, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas,Appellant, v Dominic Codio, Respondent, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Dominic Codio, Brooklyn, N.Y., respondent pro se.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Saitta, J.), dated June 23, 2011, which granted those branchesof the motion of the defendant Dominic Codio which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) todismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of standing, and pursuant to CPLR6514 to vacate a notice of pendency filed in connection with the real property.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, those branches of the motion of thedefendant Dominic Codio which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) to dismiss the complaintinsofar as asserted against him, and pursuant to CPLR 6514 to vacate the notice of pendency aredenied, and the notice of pendency is reinstated.
By producing a document designated as an "allonge to note," which established that theplaintiff is the transferee of the subject mortgage note, the plaintiff made a showing sufficient towarrant denial of that branch of the motion of the defendant Dominic Codio which was pursuantto CPLR 3211 (a) (3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him based on theplaintiff's alleged lack of standing (see CPLR 3211 [a] [3]). " '[A] written assignment ofthe underlying note . . . prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action issufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparableincident' " (Bank of N.Y. vSilverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 281 [2011], quoting US Bank N.A. v Madero, 80 AD3d 751, 753 [2011] [internalquotation marks omitted]; see U.S.Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 754 [2009]; LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Ahearn, 59 AD3d 911, 912 [2009]; see also U.S. Bank, N.A.. v Sharif, 89AD3d 723 [2011]; Aurora LoanServs., LLC v Weisblum, 85 AD3d 95, 109 [2011]; Weaver Hardware Co. vSolomovitz, 235 NY 321, 331-332 [1923]; Matter of Falls, 31 Misc 658, 660 [1900],affd 66 App Div 616 [1901]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of Codio's motion whichwere pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him, andpursuant to CPLR 6514 to vacate a notice of pendency filed by the plaintiff in connection withthe mortgaged real property. Florio, J.P., Lott, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.