101 A.D.3d 1519
N.Y. App. Div.2012Background
- Plaintiff commenced foreclosure against defendant in September 2009.
- Defendant answered, raising lack of standing as an affirmative defense.
- Plaintiff moved for summary judgment and an order of reference; defendant cross-moved for discovery-related relief.
- Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion and denied the cross motion; defendant moved for reargument, renewal and vacatur.
- Appellate court affirmed the order, addressing timeliness, renewal, and lack of standing-related jurisdiction issues.
- Court held that lack of standing is not a jurisdictional defect and denied renewal/vacatur requests based on new evidence or alleged misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of reargument | N/A | Requested reargument timely | Untimely; no appeal lies from denial of reargument |
| Renewal based on alleged misconduct in other foreclosures | N/A | Law firm misconduct in other cases calls into question documents here | Denied; defendant failed to provide new information or justify non-disclosure; renewal improper |
| Vacatur under CPLR 5015 and lack of jurisdiction | N/A | Requests relief under CPLR 5015(a)(2)-(4) | Denied; lack of standing not jurisdictional; CPLR 5015(a)(4) argument rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Malarkey, 65 AD3d 718 (2009) (affirms renewal standards under CPLR 2221)
- Lacks v Lacks, 41 NY2d 71 (1976) (lack of standing does not deprive a court of subject matter jurisdiction)
- Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239 (2007) (addressed standing and foreclosure challenges in appellate context)