NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2016 10:50 INDEX NO- 654429/2012
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2016

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY

 

 

PRESENT: GEOFFREY D.S. WRIGHT PART 47
Justice
SLM PRIVATE CREDIT STUDENT LOAN TRUST 
VL FUNDING LLC
Plaintiff-Petitioner(s) I MOTION DATE
MOTION SEQ. NO. 1_
MOTION CAL. NO.
CHRIS GUZZO, 

Defendant-Respondent(s)

 

The following papers, numbered 1 to 3 were read on this motion tolfor extend time to answer
I PAPERS NUMBERED

 

 

Notice of Motion! Order to Show Cause Affidavits Exhibits" 
Answering Affidavits Exhibits . I 2
Replying Affidavits 3
Memorandum 

Cross-Motion: Yes No

Upon the foregoing papers, it' Is ordered that this motion by the Defendant to dismiss the
complaint Is denied, alplo. ,1

?Wm? n. I

Dated: June 20. 2016 AIHQ



WRIGHT
J.S.C.

Check one: FINAL DISPOSITION NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
Check if appropriate: DO NOT POST

68

lof3

 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: Part 47


SLM PRIVATE CREDIT STUDENT LOAN TRUST Index #654429/ 12
VL FUNDING, LLC, Motion Cal 
Motion Seq. #1 

-against- Pursuant To Present
CHRIS GUZZELLO, Hon. Geoffrey Wright
. Judge, Supreme Court
Defendant-Respondent(s)



Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of
this Motion to: dismiss the complaint

 

PAPERS NUMBERED
Notice of Petition/Motion, Af?davits Exhibits Annexed 1
Order to Show Cause, Af?davits Exhibits 
Answering Af?davits Exhibits Annex 2
Replying Af?davits Exhibits Annexed 3

Cross?motion Exhibits Annexed
Supporting Affidavits
Memoranda

 

Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/Order on this Motion is as follows:

The Defendant moves to dismiss the action which seeks to recover payments due on
a college loan. Among the twenty-one affirmative defenses, none allege payment in full or
in part, and none deny that the Defendant applied for and received the proceeds of the loan.

The grounds for the motion are: (1) lack of standing; (2) failure to plead a debt
collector license number; (3) no chain of custody of the debt; (4) unsigned promissory note;
(5) lack of a disclosure statement; (5) lack of speci?city in its pooling agreement.

As to grounds 1,2,3 and 5, the Plaintiff alleges that it is the original note holder. The
disclosure statement is annexed to the opposing af?davit as exhibit It is dated

November 6, 2006. The reply papers do not gainsay the exhibit. The Defendant does not
submit, in his affidavit to, challenge any statement of fact in the opposition.

66

2of3

 

The reply papers concede the basic statements of fact in the opposing papers by its
silence. Instead, the Defendant replies by arguing, without evidence, that the Plaintiff is not
a legal entity or real party interest, and that the Plaintiff is not in possession of the promissory
note.

Beginning in November 2009, the Defendant began to receive notices of default
without any apparent objection.

The history of the note is annexed to the opposing papers as exhibits through 
For motion purposes, the standing of the Plaintiff lS estab?1shed Any further questions are

for discovery. The motion to dismiss 1s deniw

mem n. WRIGHT
Dated: June 20, 2016 A 

 

67

3of3