The Supreme Court, Kings County denied plaintiff’s fourth attempt at summary judgment in an action seeking to foreclose on a residential property.
Plaintiff first moved for summary judgment and to strike the defendant’s affirmative defenses arguing that it had established a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment by virtue of its alleged physical possession of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action and its continued possession of same. In denying Plaintiff’s first motion for summary judgment, the Court stated, inter alia, that the contested note appears not to be endorsed in blank as the note and allonge were in fact endorsed to another entity, and not payable to Plaintiff
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed its motion to reargue its motion for summary judgment. In its motion to reargue, Plaintiff for the first time argued that note was endorsed in blank, despite the fact that the note was clearly endorsed in favor of another entity. Otherwise, Plaintiff’s second motion was merely a reiteration of its first motion for summary judgment. The Court denied Plaintiff’s second attempt at summary judgment.
Subsequently, Plaintiff made its third attempt at summary judgment by filing a motion to renew its motion for summary judgment. In support of its third motion Plaintiff once again recited the same facts and agreements presented in its prior two motions. This time, however, Plaintiff for the first time insisted that the endorsement of the note was canceled. While the Court granted the motion to renew and reargue, it ultimately denied Plaintiff’s motion and adhered to it prior decision denying summary judgment.
On its fourth attempt at summary judgment Plaintiff, without submitting any newly discovered evidence, simply relied in large part upon the arguments made in its prior three motions, while adding the contention that the allonge from the original lender was created in error. In denying the Plaintiff’s successive motion for summary judgment, the Court stated that in the absence of the allonge from the original lender, which Plaintiff contends was done in error, the note would be unendorsed and not a bearer instrument.
Federal Natl’ v. Quadrozzi et al., Index No. 3017/2014 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cnty., July 2, 2019)