Justice Thomas Whelan

Reed obtained a mortgage loan and US Bank acquired ownership of the note and mortgage by a written assignment, then began a foreclosure action 11 months after Reed defaulted in payment. US Bank subsequently interposed this motion to cancel the notice of pendency and discontinue the action without prejudice. Reed opposed, and interposed a cross-motion seeking that dismissal be conditioned on the payment of counsel fees and costs in her favor, among other things. The court found the application lacked merit as it was unsupported by any proof by Reed that US Bank lacked standing. It further ruled the remaining portions of Reed’s cross-motion were equally lacking in merit, noting the absence of standing on the part of plaintiff was not an actionable wrong, as it did not constitute bad faith, frivolous or unconscionable conduct. The court stated Reed’s claim for a judicial imposition of a toll on interest from the date of her default in payment was also meritless, also rejecting the notion that US Bank’s mere commencement of a civil action to enforce contractual rights and remedies constituted frivolous or malicious conduct. Thus, Reed’s cross-motion was denied entirely, and US Bank was granted discontinuance of the action.