Opinion
May 4, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.).
The instant mortgage foreclosure action is authorized notwithstanding that plaintiff, a foreign banking corporation that maintains a representative office in New York (Banking Law §§ 221-a, 221-b), although properly registered is unlicensed (Banking Law § 200; Commonwealth Bank Trust Co. v Tioga Mills, 78 A.D.2d 953; Skylake State Bank v Solar Heat Insulation, 148 Misc.2d 32). Nor should plaintiff be estopped from maintaining the action against defendant, a lessee whose rights were expressly subordinated to the mortgage under foreclosure, absent a showing of any misrepresentation or other affirmative wrongdoing by plaintiff.
Moreover, defendant's request that plaintiff provide it with a non-disturbance agreement as a means of avoiding the subordination clause, first made two months after the foreclosure action had commenced, shows that the required element of reliance upon any claimed misrepresentation was lacking.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.