Friday, June 15, 2012

Citibank, NA v. D.D. and B.D. Richmond County Index # 101763/2012

Citibank, NA v. D.D. and B.D. Richmond County Index # 101763/2012 


Citibank once again through its counsel sued a husband and wife on the note of a second mortgage for $44,555.21 as if it were just credit card debt. Well, I guess they realized that you can't do that. We made a motion to dismiss citing a number of defects. First, the second mortgage and note were with Capital One - not Citibank. In the complaint, Citibank wrote “Plaintiff is the original creditor and is not required to be licensed by the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs.” Since they were not the original creditor, Citibank must be licensed by the Department of Consumer Affairs. So Citibank lacked standing (in other words it didn't show that it owned the note) and wasn't properly licensed. In addition, the complaint also didn't properly plead a cause of action for "Account Stated." Furthermore, Citibank did not give the 90 day notice required by RPAPL 1304. 


 Today, Citibank agreed to dismiss the case! We have successfully defended several Citibank lawsuits on the note of the second mortgage. If you get sued by Citibank (or any other bank for that matter) on a second mortgage note, please contact us.





2 comments:

  1. This was a good suggestion that you put up here...dude…..hope that it benefits all the ones who land up here. 
    Alberta Mortgage

    ReplyDelete