Deustche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. White

Deustche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v White 2026 NY Slip Op 05594 October 1, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Deustche Bank National Trust Company, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v Nigel David White etc., et al., Defendants, Colin Chapman etc., Defendant-Respondent. Decided and Entered: October 01, 2026 Index No. 807873/22|Appeal No. 7106|Case No. 2025-04799| Before: Moulton, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, Michael, Hagler, JJ. McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC, Melville (Jamie C. Krapf of counsel), for appellant. Woods Lonergan PLLC, New York (Lawrence R. Lonergan of counsel), for respondent. [*1] Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Naita A. Semaj, J.), entered on or about April 4, 2025, which granted defendant Colin Chapman's motion to dismiss the action as against all defendants pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated. Chapman transferred his interest in the subject property by deed dated October 26, 2022. Thus, he was divested of standing to defend the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Patrick 173 AD3d 973, 974 [2d Dept 2019]). He has no liability for the debt and no ownership interest in the property, and so will not be impacted by the outcome of the action (see BHMPW Funding, LLC v Lloyd-Lewis, 194 AD3d 780, 783 [2d Dept 2021] ["As a stranger to the note and mortgage agreement, P & Q lacked standing to raise defenses based on the plaintiff's alleged noncompliance with the terms of the note and mortgage agreement"]). Although the complaint broadly reserved deficiency rights as against all "obligors" and the period for seeking a deficiency judgment does not appear to have expired (RPAPL 1371[2]), defendant is named solely as an heir-at-law and next of kin to deceased borrower Anne Chapman, is not an "obligor" on the underlying note, and did not assume the debt or execute the mortgage. Accordingly, there is no threat of a deficiency judgment sufficent to create standing (see Nationstar Mtge. LLC v Vassi, — AD3d —, 2026 NY Slip Op 02375, *2 [1st Dept 2026] ["Because Vassi is subject to a potential deficiency judgment and is a debtor on the underlying mortgage, he has an interest in defending the action notwithstanding that he transferred the mortgaged property to IPA and as a result, no longer has the right to redeem the property"]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: October 1, 2026