Central Federal Savings, F.S.B. v. 405 W. 45th St., Inc.
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Eitani (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Gokhvat Holdings LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association (District Court, S.D. New York 2022)
- HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Welt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- City Safety Compliance Corp. v. 310 Group, LLC (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
- U.S. Bank N.A. v. Hossain (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- B & H Florida Notes LLC v. Ashkenazi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Brighton BK, LLC v. Kurbatsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- SDF 19 Linden, LLC v. Global Universal Group Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Greenpoint Mortgage Corp. v. Lamberti (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Thompson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Thompson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Lincoln Savings Bank v. Wynn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Cohanim v. Sachar (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2004)
- Asterino v. Asterino & Associates, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered October 24, 1996 and October 29, 1996, respectively, which, inter alia, granted nonparty Chatsworth Assets, Inc.’s motion to extend the notice of pendency in this foreclosure action for an additional three-year period, and denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Since defendant does not challenge the substantive validity of the assignment of the subject mortgage to Chatsworth Assets, and since an assignee of a mortgage can continue an action in the name of the original mortgagee, even in the absence of a formal substitution (CPLR 1018), there is no merit to defendant’s claim that the action should be dismissed on the ground that the named plaintiff “owns no rights in this matter”. Nor is there merit to defendant’s claim that Chatsworth Assets has been guilty of delay and bad faith warranting no further extensions of the notice of pendency. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.