Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

FIRST TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., Respondent,
v.
Fanny MEISELS, a/k/a Fanny Elkon, Appellant, et al., Defendants.


Dec. 16, 1996.


 Plaintiff sued to foreclose mortgage.   The Supreme Court, Kings County, Garry, 
J., granted plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's answer, affirmative 
defenses, and counterclaims, and denied defendant's cross-motion to dismiss. 
Defendant appealed.   The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that: (1) 
plaintiff, as both assignee of mortgage and, by indorsement, the holder of 
underlying note at time foreclosure action was commenced, had standing to 
maintain foreclosure action, and (2) notice of default adequately conformed to 
provisions of mortgage which governed such notice.

 Affirmed.


West Headnotes

Mortgages  417
266k417 Most Cited Cases

Plaintiff, as both the assignee of mortgage and, by indorsement, the holder of 
underlying note at time foreclosure action was commenced, had standing to 
maintain foreclosure action.
 **122 Sol Mermelstein, Brooklyn, for appellant.

 Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., Garden City, for respondent.


 Before MILLER, J.P., and RITTER, PIZZUTO and SANTUCCI, JJ.



 MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

 *414 In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the appellant appeals from an order 
of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated August 15, 1995, which 
granted the plaintiff's motion to strike her answer, affirmative defenses, and 
counterclaims, and denied her cross motion to dismiss the action insofar as 
asserted against her.

 ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 Contrary to the appellant's contention, the plaintiff was both the assignee of 
the mortgage and, by indorsement, the holder of the underlying note at the time 
the foreclosure action was commenced.   Accordingly, the plaintiff had standing 
to maintain the action (see, Slutsky v. Blooming Grove Inn, 147 A.D.2d 208, 542 
N.Y.S.2d 721;  cf., Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 A.D.2d 537, 536 N.Y.S.2d 92). The 
record also supports the determination that the notice of default adequately 
conformed to the provisions of the mortgage which governed such notice.

 We have considered the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be 
without merit.

651 N.Y.S.2d 121, 234 A.D.2d 414

END OF DOCUMENT