Court Holds That Plaintiff Has Standing Because Note And Guaranty Were Properly Assigned

On April 29, 2024, Justice Andrew Borrok granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff in Lapis Advisers, LP et al. v. Coal Capital Ephrata, LLC, Index No. 650128/2021 sought summary judgment for failure to repay amounts on a note assigned to plaintiff. The Court concluded that plaintiff had standing, explaining:

The Note and the Guaranty are valid contracts. They were properly executed by Santander (who was a holder of the Note as Ms. Marrow testified [NYSCEF Doc. No. 71, tr. at 158, lines 12-22]) and WP AC and CCE when Santander loaned and the borrower received $6.5 million net of closing costs and expenses (Banque Nationale de Paris v 1567 Broadway Ownership Assoc., 214 AD2d 359, 361 [1st Dept 1995]). The Note and Guaranty were properly assigned pursuant to the Assignment of Loan Documents (NYSCEF Doc. No. 54, exhibit A, "School Loan" , ¶¶ 1, 7) prior to the time that this lawsuit was commenced. Thus, the Plaintiff has standing to bring this lawsuit (Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Breton, 142 AD3d, at 684 [2d Dept 2016]; Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Abdan, 131 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2d Dept 2015]; Emigrant Bank v Larizza, 129 AD3d 904 [2d Dept 2015]; US. Bank NA. v Akande, 136 AD3d 887 [2d Dept 2016]; Wells Fargo Bank, NA. v Archibald, 150 AD3d 937 [2d Dept 2017]; HSBC Bank USA, NA. v Thomas, 46 Misc3d 429,432 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2014], citing GRP Loan, LLC v. Taylor, 95 AD3d 1172, 1173 [2d Dept 2012] [internal citations omitted]; see also Stabilis Fund IL LLC v. Nostrand Plaza, Inc., No. 10239/12 2014 WL 1661826, at *3 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2014]).

The attorneys at Schlam Stone & Dolan frequently litigate motions for summary judgment and counsel clients with respect to issues concerning assignment. Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning such issues.