Key Takeaway
NY appellate court criticizes Justice Schack for ignoring precedent on standing defenses in foreclosure cases, ordering case reassignment.
When Judges Ignore Legal Precedent: A Rare Judicial Rebuke
In the world of New York foreclosure litigation, standing — the legal right to bring a lawsuit — is a fundamental requirement that must be properly raised by defendants. The Second Department’s decision in HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Simmons delivers an unusual and pointed critique of a trial judge who repeatedly disregarded established appellate precedent.
This case highlights the hierarchical nature of New York’s court system and the importance of following established legal principles. When trial judges consistently ignore appellate decisions, it undermines the predictability and fairness that litigants expect from the judicial system. The standing issue in foreclosure cases is particularly significant, as defendants must raise this defense early in the proceedings or risk waiving it entirely — a principle that applies broadly across civil litigation, including cases involving standing defenses that aren’t expressly pleaded.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Simmons, 2015 NY Slip Op 01609 (2d Dept. 2015)
“Since Justice Arthur Schack continues to ignore this Court’s precedent, as articulated in Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo (42 AD3d 239), holding that the defense of lack of standing is waived if not raised by the defendant in an answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Islar, 122 AD3d 566; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Taher, 104 AD3d at 817; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Emmanuel, 83 AD3d at 1048-1049; cf. Bank of N.Y. v Cepeda, 120 AD3d 451, 452; Bank of N.Y. v Mulligan, 119 AD3d 716, 716; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Gioia, 114 AD3d at 767), we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the complaint before a different Justice.”
Key Takeaway
This decision demonstrates the appellate court’s frustration with a trial judge who repeatedly ignored established precedent regarding standing defenses in foreclosure cases. The court’s decision to reassign the case to a different judge underscores the importance of judicial compliance with higher court rulings and the proper application of procedural rules governing when standing objections must be raised.
Related Articles
- Motion seeking leave to amend the answer to seek affirmative defense of lack of standing is proper
- Understanding Legal Standing in New York: A Comprehensive Guide for Long Island and NYC Residents
- Standing – the Defense Applied Outside the No-Fault Arena
- Assignments and business records – a deadly combination
