motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint

7/30/2019 motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint

1/8

Decided on October 6, 2009Supreme Court, Richmond County

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, AS TRUSTEE

FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF CARRINGTON

MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2005-OPT2, ASSET-BACKED

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-OPT2, Plaintiff

against

Debra Abbate, CARMELA ABBATE, KIM FIORENTINO,

BOCCE COURT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,

NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

BOARD, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT ADJUDICATIONBUREAU, NEW YORK CITY PARKING VIOLATIONS

BUREAU, and "JOHN DOE No. 1" through "JOHN DOE

#10," the last ten names being fictitious and unknown to the

plaintiff, the person or parties intended being the person or

parties, if any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon

the Mortgaged premises described in the Complaint,

Defendants.

100893/07

Plaintiff was represented by the law firm of Frenkel Lambert Weiss & Weisman.

Defendant was represented by Robert E. Brown, Esq.

Joseph J. Maltese, J.

The defendants Kim Fiorentino, Debra Abbate, and Carmella Abbate's motion to

dismiss the plaintiff's complaint is granted in its entirety.


2/8

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage dated February 24, 2005, upon the

property located at 25 Bocce Court, Staten Island, New York. The mortgage was

originated by Suntrust Mortgage Inc. ("Suntrust") and was recorded in the Office of

the Clerk of Richmond County on April 26, 2005. The plaintiff filed the Summons,

Complaint, and Notice of Pendency on March [*2]1, 2007.[FN1] However, Suntrust

assigned the first mortgage on this property to Option One Mortgage Corporation,

which was executed on July 6, 2007. Another assignment to plaintiff Deutsche Bank

National Trust Company ("Deutsche Bank") was executed on March 7, 2007. Both

assignments, which were recorded on July 23, 2007, contained a clause expressing

their intention to be retroactively effective: the first one to date back to February 24,

2005, and the second one to February 28, 2007.[FN2] On November 19, 2007, this court

issued an order of foreclosure and sale on the subject property. This court also granted

two orders to show cause to stay the foreclosure on January 9, 2008 and April 8, 2008.

[FN3]

Discussion

The Appellate Division, Second Department ruled and reiterated inKluge v. Kugazy

the well established law that "foreclosure of a mortgage may not be brought by one

who has no title to it . . . ."[FN4] The Appellate Division, Third Department has

similarly ruled that an assignee of a mortgage does not have a right or standing to

foreclose a mortgage unless the assignment is complete at the time of commencing the

action.[FN5] An assignment takes the form of a writing or occurs through the physical

delivery of the mortgage.[FN6] Absent such transfer, the assignment of the mortgage is

a nullity.[FN7]

Retroactive Assignments of a Mortgage are Invalid

The first issue this court must resolve is whether the clauses in the July 6, 2007

and March 7, 2007 assignments setting the effective date of the assignment to

February 24, 2005 and February 28, 2007 respectively are permissible. This court
http://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#1FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#2FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#3FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#4FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#5FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#6FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#7FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#2FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#3FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#4FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#5FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#6FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#7FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#1FN


3/8

rules that, absent a physical or written transfer before the filing of a complaint,

retroactive assignments are invalid.

Recently, trial courts have been faced with the situation where the plaintiff

commenced a [*3]foreclosure action before the assignment of the mortgage.[FN8] In

those cases the trial courts have held,

. . . where there is no evidence that plaintiff, prior to commencing the foreclosure

action, was the holder of the mortgage and note, took physical delivery of the

mortgage and note, or was conveyed the mortgage and note by written assignment, an

assignment's language purporting to give it retroactive effect prior to the date of the

commencement of the action is insufficient to establish the plaintiff's requisite

standing. . .[FN9]

In this case, the plaintiff failed to offer any admissible evidence demonstrating

that they became assignees to the mortgage on or before March 1, 2007; as such, this

court agrees with its sister courts and finds that the retroactive language contained in

the July 26, 2007 and March 7, 2007 assignments are ineffective. This court therefore

rules that it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter when the plaintiff has no title to

the mortgage at the time that it commenced the action.

The next issue this court must resolve is whether the defendants waived subject

matter jurisdiction because they did not raise that issue in their prior applications to

this court.

Affirmative Defense of Standing

At the outset of any litigation, the court must ascertain that the proper party

requests an adjudication of a dispute.[FN10] As the first step of justiciability, "standing
http://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#8FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#9FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#9FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#10FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#8FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#9FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#10FN


4/8

to sue is critical to the proper functioning of the judicial system."[FN11] Standing is a

threshold issue; if it is denied, "the pathway to the courthouse is blocked." [FN12]

The doctrine of standing is designed to "ensure that a party seeking relief has a

sufficiently cognizable stake in the outcome so as to present a court with a dispute that

is capable [*4]of judicial resolution."[FN13]"Standing to sue requires an interest in the

claim at issue in the lawsuit that the law will recognize as a sufficient predicate for

determining the issue at the litigant's request."[FN14] Where the plaintiff has no legal or

equitable interest in a mortgage, the plaintiff has no foundation in law or in fact.[FN15]

A plaintiff who has no standing in an action is subject to a jurisdictional dismissal

since (1) courts have jurisdiction only over controversies that involve the plaintiff, (2)

a plaintiff found to lack "standing is not involved in a controversy, and (3) the courts

therefore have no jurisdiction of the case when such plaintiff purports to bring it."[FN16]

On November 7, 2005, in the case ofWells Fargo Bank Minn. N.A. v.

Mastropaolo ["Mastropaolo"], this court found that "Insofar as the plaintiff was not

the legal titleholder to the mortgage at the time the action was commenced, [the Bank]

had no standing to bring the action and it must be dismissed."[FN17] Erroneously, this

court "[o]rdered, that the plaintiff's summary judgment motion is denied in its entirety

and that this action is dismissed with prejudice."[FN18]

This Court should have ordered that this matter was dismissed without prejudice,

which would have given the plaintiff the right to start the action again after it had

acquired title to the note and mortgage. Unfortunately, the plaintiff, did not seek a

motion to reargue that error, which would have been corrected promptly. Instead, the

plaintiff appealed the decision to the Appellate Division, Second Department, which

rightfully reversed the decision 18 months later on May 29, 2007 based upon the

dismissal with prejudice as opposed to a dismissal without prejudice to refile the
http://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#11FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#12FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#13FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#13FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#14FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#15FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#16FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#17FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#18FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#11FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#12FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#13FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#14FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#15FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#16FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#17FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#18FN


5/8

action. However, in what appears to be dicta, the court went on to discuss whether

lack of standing is tantamount to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court further

stated that the failure of the initial pro se defendant to make a pre-answer motion or a

motion to dismiss, the defense of lack of standing would be waived. But the Appellate

Division did not address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, which may not be

waived. [*5]

In the instant case, this court is again faced with similar facts, which raise the

issue that the Bank must have title to the mortgage before it can sue the defendant.

Clearly, having title to the subject matter (the mortgage) is a condition precedent to

the right to sue on that mortgage. This has always been the case, but since the

Appellate Division, Second Department's comments inMastropaolo, that issue has

been clouded.

At the time that the plaintiff improperly commenced the action, the pathway to

the Courthouse should have been blocked. Deutsche Bank had no legal foundation to

foreclose a mortgage in which it had no interest at the time of filing the summons and

complaint. Lack of a plaintiff's interest at the beginning of the action strips the court's

power to adjudicate over the action.[FN19] Lack of interest and controversy is protected

by the umbrella of subject matter jurisdiction. Whenever a court lacks jurisdiction, a

defense can be raised at any time and is not waivable.[FN20]In other words, for there to

be a cause of action, there needs to be an injury. At the time that the action was

commenced, the instant plaintiff suffered no injury and had no interest in the

controversy. Since the plaintiff filed this action to foreclose the mortgage before it had

title to it, there was no controversy between the existing parties when the action

commenced. Therefore, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the

present case. The defendants are consequently entitled to a dismissal without

prejudice because the court lacked jurisdiction over a non-existent controversy.
http://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#19FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#20FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#20FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#19FNhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#20FN


6/8

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that the defendants Kim Fiorentino, Debra Abbate, and Carmella

Abbate's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint is granted, without prejudice to

the plaintiff having the right to refile within the time provided by the Statute of

Limitations; and it is further

ORDERED, that the parties and counsel shall appear before this court to further

conference this matter on November 20, 2009 at 11:00AM.

ENTER,

DATED: October 6, 2009

Joseph J. Maltese

Justice of the Supreme Court

Footnotes

Footnote 1: Defendants' exhibit A

Footnote 2: Defendants' exhibit C.

Footnote 3: Plaintiff's exhibits D & F.

Footnote 4:Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537 [2d Dept 1988].

Footnote 5:LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Ahearn, 59 AD3d 911 [3d Dept 2009];

Bankers Trust Co. v. Hoovis, 263 AD2d 937 [3d Dept 1999].

Footnote 6: Flyer v. Sullivan, 284 AD 697 [1st Dept 1954].
http://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#1CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#2CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#3CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#4CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#5CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#5CASEhttp://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_01388.htmhttp://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_01388.htmhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#6CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#1CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#2CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#3CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#4CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#5CASEhttp://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_01388.htmhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#6CASE


7/8

Footnote 7:Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537,supra note 4.

Footnote 8: See, Washington Mutual Bank v. Patterson, 21 Misc 3d 1145(A), 2008

NY Slip Op 52507(U)[Dec. 15, 2008]; See also, Indymac Bank, FSB v. Bethley, 22

Misc 3d 1119(A), 2009 NY Slip Op 50186(U)[Feb. 6, 2009]; See also, New CenturyMortgage Corp. v. Durden, 22 Misc 3d 1118(A), 2009 NY Slip Op 50175(U)[Feb. 2,

2009].

Footnote 9: Washington Mutual Bank v. Patterson, 21 Misc 3d 1145(A), 2008 NY

Slip Op 52507(U)[Dec. 15, 2008].

Footnote 10: Caprer v. Nussbaum, 36 AD3d 176 [2006]

Footnote 11:Id; Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization, LLC v. Akitoye,

2009 NY Slip Op 50076[U] [2009] citing Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce,

Inc. v. Pataki, 100 NY2d 801, 812 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1017 [2003].

Footnote 12: Id.

Footnote 13:Id. citing Society of Plastics Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761,

772 [1991].

Footnote 14:Katz v. East-Ville Realty Co., 249 AD2d 243 [1st Dept 1998];Kluge v.

Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537,supra note 4.

Footnote 15: Id.

Footnote 16:Security Pac. Natl. Bank v. Evans, 31 AD3d 278 [1st Dept 2006,

Catterson, J., dissenting] citing Siegel, NY Prac 136, at 232 [4th ed].

Footnote 17:Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota N.A. v. Mastropaolo, Sup Ct, Richmond

County, Nov.7, 2005, Maltese, J., index No. 101817/2005.

Footnote 18:Id.

Footnote 19: Siegel, NY Prac 136, at 232 [4th ed].
http://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#7CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#8CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#9CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#10CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#10CASEhttp://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_07443.htmhttp://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_07443.htmhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#11CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#12CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#13CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#14CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#15CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#16CASEhttp://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_05721.htmhttp://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_05721.htmhttp://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_05721.htmhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#17CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#18CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#19CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#7CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#8CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#9CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#10CASEhttp://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_07443.htmhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#11CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#12CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#13CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#14CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#15CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#16CASEhttp://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_05721.htmhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#17CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#18CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#19CASE


8/8

Footnote 20: Id.
http://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#20CASEhttp://brunettelawoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/deutsche-bank-v-abbate-2009-ny-slip-op-52154-ny-sup-october-6-2009.htm#20CASE

Documents

motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint