Another Brooklyn Beatdown – Hon. Arthur M. Schack – Plaintiff U.S. BANK Never had Standing to Prosecute this Action Because of an Ineffective Assignment

Hon. Arthur M. Schack does it again!

U.S. Bank, N.A. v Emmanuel

2010 NY Slip Op 50819(U)
Decided on May 11, 2010

Supreme Court, Kings County
Schack, J.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 11, 2010

Supreme Court, Kings County

U.S. Bank, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR SG MORTGAGE SECURITIES ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-FRE2,, Plaintiff,

against

Arriana Emmanuel, et. al., Defendants.

19271/09

Plaintiff– US Bank

Steven J Baum, P.C.
Amherst NY

Arthur M. Schack, J.

____________________________________________________

The ex parte motion of plaintiff U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS

TRUSTEE FOR SG MORTGAGE SECURITIES ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-FRE2 [U.S. BANK], for service of a supplemental summons by publication upon defendant ARRIANA EMMANUEL [EMMANUEL] and related relief, in the instant mortgage foreclosure action for the premises located at 1388 Lincoln Place, Brooklyn, New York (Block 1391, Lot 13, County of Kings) is denied with prejudice. The instant action is dismissed and the instant notice of pendency is cancelled. Plaintiff U.S. BANK never had standing to prosecute this action because of an ineffective assignment of the subject mortgage and note to it. Plaintiff U.S. BANK’s attempt to foreclose upon a mortgage in which it has no legal or equitable interest is without foundation in law or fact.

Further, even if this action was not dismissed, there is a conflict of interest in that [*2]plaintiff’s counsel, Steven J. Baum, P.C., appears to be in violation of 22 NYCRR § 1200.0 (Rules of Professional Conduct, effective April 1, 2009) Rule 1.7, “Conflict of Interest: Current Clients.” The Baum firm represents both MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS [MERS], as nominee for FREMONT INVESTMENT AND LOAN [FREMONT], the ineffective assignor of the instant mortgage, and plaintiff U.S. BANK, the ineffective assignee of the instant mortgage. If the Court did not dismiss the action, the Court would need proof, in an affirmation by Steven J. Baum, Esq., the principal of Steven J. Baum, P.C., that both MERS, as nominee for FREMONT, and U.S. BANK each gave “informed consent, confirmed in writing” to the concurrent conflict of interest in their representation by Steven J. Baum, P.C., with both MERS, as nominee for FREMONT, and U.S. BANK each being “aware of the relevant circumstances, including the material and reasonably foreseeable ways that the conflict could adversely affect the interests of that client.”

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that the motion of plaintiff, U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR SG MORTGAGE SECURITIES ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-FRE2, for service of a supplemental summons by publication upon defendant ARRIANA EMMANUEL and related relief, in the instant mortgage foreclosure action for the premises located at 1388 Lincoln Place, Brooklyn, New York (Block 1391, Lot 13, County of Kings) is denied with prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED, that the instant action, Index Number 19271/09, is dismissed with prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED that the Notice of Pendency in this action, filed with the Kings County Clerk on July 30, 2009, by plaintiff, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR SG MORTGAGE SECURITIES ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-FRE2, to foreclose a mortgagefor real property located at 1388 Lincoln Place, Brooklyn New York (Block 1391, Lot 13, County of Kings), is cancelled. [*7]

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

ENTER

______________________________

Hon. Arthur M. Schack

Read the order in its entirety below…

4closureFraud

Judge Schack – U.S. Bank, N.a. v Emmanuel
[scribd id=31266461 key=key-thuge9mkky5tbjyzg8r mode=list]

Comments
2 Responses to “Another Brooklyn Beatdown – Hon. Arthur M. Schack – Plaintiff U.S. BANK Never had Standing to Prosecute this Action Because of an Ineffective Assignment”
  1. Adjudicating cases based on laws and demanding adherence to professional codes of conduct!

    YAY!

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *