- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Julius
- Docket
- 2024-02929
- Filed
- May 27, 2026
- Slip Op
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03291
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03291 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2026)
Background
In January 2013, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company commenced an action against Kimara Julius, among others, to foreclose a mortgage on property located in Saint Albans, Queens. Julius answered and asserted as an affirmative defense that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the foreclosure action. In August 2022 — nearly a decade into the litigation — Deutsche Bank moved for summary judgment, seeking an order striking Julius’s answer and appointing a referee.
The Supreme Court, Queens County denied the motion in an order entered June 14, 2023, finding that Deutsche Bank failed to make a prima facie showing that it had standing to commence the action. Deutsche Bank then moved for leave to reargue, contending that the court had overlooked or misapprehended certain facts and law, particularly regarding standing based on a written assignment of the mortgage note.
In an order entered March 11, 2024, the Supreme Court granted reargument but upon reconsideration adhered to its original determination denying summary judgment. Deutsche Bank appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the order, holding that the Supreme Court properly adhered to its determination denying summary judgment upon reargument. The court first addressed the procedural framework for reargument under CPLR 2221(d)(2), noting that such a motion must be based upon “matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court” and may not include new facts not offered on the prior motion. While the court found that Deutsche Bank’s reargument motion was properly based on matters the court allegedly overlooked, the substantive outcome remained unchanged.
On the merits, the court reiterated the standing requirement in mortgage foreclosure actions: “A plaintiff has standing in a mortgage foreclosure action when it is the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced,” citing U.S. Bank N.A. v. Fabbro, 192 AD3d 1178. Either a written assignment of the note or physical delivery of the note prior to commencement is sufficient to establish standing. Deutsche Bank failed to make a prima facie showing of standing through either method, as its evidence was insufficient to establish that it held or was assigned the note at the time the action was commenced in 2013.
Takeaways
This decision underscores the critical importance of standing in New York mortgage foreclosure actions. Standing must be established as of the date the action is commenced, and the burden falls on the plaintiff to demonstrate that it was the holder or assignee of the underlying note at that time. This requirement has been a frequent battleground in foreclosure litigation, particularly for securitized mortgages where the chain of assignments may be complex or poorly documented.
The case also illustrates the limited scope of reargument motions under CPLR 2221(d). Reargument is not designed to give an unsuccessful party “successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided, or to present arguments different from those originally presented.” A court may grant reargument and still adhere to its original determination if it finds that its initial analysis was correct. The decision to grant reargument lies within the court’s discretion, but granting it does not guarantee a different result.
For foreclosure plaintiffs, the lesson is clear: standing evidence must be assembled and presented carefully. A foreclosure action commenced without adequate proof of standing may be vulnerable to challenge at any stage of the litigation, even years after filing.
Why It Matters
The standing defense remains one of the most powerful tools available to homeowners in foreclosure actions, and this decision reaffirms its vitality. Banks and loan servicers prosecuting foreclosures must ensure that their evidence of note ownership or assignment is clear, complete, and tied to the date of commencement. The fact that this action was commenced in 2013 and was still litigating standing issues in 2024 illustrates how the failure to establish standing at the outset can result in prolonged and ultimately unsuccessful litigation.
For defense practitioners, the case confirms that a standing challenge can be raised at the summary judgment stage and need not be litigated solely as a threshold jurisdictional issue. Even after years of litigation, a defendant who preserved a standing defense in the answer can still successfully oppose a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on that basis.