Thursday, February 21, 2013


In Citibank, N.A., v. JF, Index No. 501820/2012, Supreme Court, Kings County, Foster & Garbus on behalf of Citibank sought to enforce a note against our clients in the amount of $ $111,790.44 Dollars. 
The Plaintiff did not provide the date of note, the loan number, or the original loan amount; nor does the Complaint indicate whether any payments were made, the amount due or whether the loan was accelerated.   Remarkably, the Complaint only alleges “Upon information and belief, Defendant(s) borrowed money from Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s assignors pursuant to a promissory note.”  The Complaint also falsely alleges “Plaintiff is the original creditor and is not required to be licensed by the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs.”
The Defendants did not execute a note with the Plaintiff, nor did they borrow money from the Plaintiff.  On February 7, 2007, Defendants did sign a note with Geneva Mortgage Corp. – not with the Plaintiff.  Furthermore,  Defendants did not receive any of with the requisite statutory notices prior to commencing this action which purportedly arises out of the Defendants’ default on a promissory note.  As such, the Plaintiff has failed to comply with a condition precedent for the commencement of the law suit. 
Faced with the motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Foster & Garbus voluntarily discontinued the action against the Defendants.  This is the FIFTH time, we have successfully defended a homeowner in an action brought by Foster & Garbus on behalf of Citimortgage or Citibank seeking to collect on the note from a second mortgage.  

No comments:

Post a Comment