The following e-filed papers read herein: NYSCEF Doc Nos. Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/Petition/Cross Motion and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed 56-62 65, 67-98 Opposition Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed 68-98 101, 104-105 Reply Affidavits (Affirmations) 101, 104-105 107-108 Upon the foregoing papers in this action to quiet title to the real property at 318 Halsey Street in Brooklyn (Block 1846, Lot 40) (Property), pursuant to Article 15 of the New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL), plaintiff NYC REO, LLC (NYC REO or Plaintiff) moves (in motion sequence [mot. seq.] three) for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3212, granting it summary judgment on its First and Second Causes of Action against defendant Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and dismissing or otherwise striking Fannie Mae’s answer and affirmative defenses (NYSCEF Doc No. 56). Non-party Nationstar Mortgage LLC (Nationstar) d/b/a Mr. Cooper, Successor Defendant and Assignee of Fannie Mae, cross-moves (in mot. Seq. four) for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3212, granting summary judgment dismissing the First and Second Causes of Action in the complaint (NYSCEF Doc No. 65). Background On March 8, 2021, NYC REO commenced this action against Fannie Mae and Bay 7, Inc.1 by filing a summons and a verified complaint alleging that “[t]his action is brought pursuant to Article 15 of the [RPAPL] to compel a determination of claims” to the Property (NYSCEF Doc No. 1 at 1). The complaint alleges that NYC REO “acquired title to the Brooklyn Property by way of deed from the prior owner, Nicole Roman” and is the fee owner of the Property (id. at 2). The complaint alleges that “[e]ach of the Defendants is named because they claim, or it appears from the public records, that the[y] might claim an interest in the Brooklyn Property, adverse to that of [NYC REO]” (id. at 3). The First Cause of Action seeks to quiet title regarding the October 3, 2005 mortgage encumbering the Property in the principal amount of $464,000.00. “Pursuant to NY RPAPL 1501 Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment securing cancelation and discharge of [the] Mortgage recorded against the Brooklyn Property based upon the expiration of the statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 213 (4)” (id. at 11). The complaint alleges that on March 6, 2008, Indymac Bank (Indymac), Fannie Mae’s predecessor, commenced a prior foreclosure action, thereby accelerating the entire debt (2008 Foreclosure Action)2 (id. at 12). Although the 2008 Foreclosure Action was dismissed by the court in November 2010 for failure to prosecute, allegedly that dismissal did not de-accelerate the loan (id. at
13-14). The complaint alleges that “[m]ore than 6 years have passed since the Fannie Mae mortgage was accelerated [on March 6, 2008], thus the statute of limitations expired on or about March 6, 2014″ (id. at 19). The Second Cause of Action seeks “a declaratory judgment and order discharging the [October 3, 2005] promissory note on the grounds that the statute of limitations has expired” based on Fannie Mae’s commencement of the 2008 Foreclosure Action and its failure to deaccelerate the debt (id. at 28). Both the First and Second Causes of Action allege that Fannie Mae unsuccessfully moved to vacate the dismissal of the 2008 Foreclosure Action in January 2019, in which its counsel submitted an affirmation admitting that the October 2005 Fannie Mae mortgage was not deaccelerated (id. at
