BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
Mastro, J.P., Hall, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P.
CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
标签。使用了直引号。所有大写字母和斜体格式均已保留。由于页码标签优先级要求，文档中使用了Report page numbers (706, 707)。已根据要求生成包含元数据的Case Information部分。由于第一页开头内容是另一案件的结尾，第二页结尾内容是下一案件的开头，故只提取了完整的一篇法律意见。原文中的连字符换行词（如“elec tions“, “set aside“, “entitle ment“等）在转录中已根据语义恢复为连词。所有引用均包含在相应的标签中。没有添加代码块或注释。原文中第一页的法官名单出现在意见末尾前一行，以及第二页末尾的合议庭名单，已依样保留并格式化。第一页最上方的片段被视为前一案件的剩余部分，已跳过。第二页最下方的标题被视为后续新案件的开头，已跳过。全文保持严格 verbatim。对于 OCR 错误（如 “elec tions” 拆分），已根据 “Rejoin ALL hyphenated line breaks” 规则合并。对于 multi-opinion 逻辑，仅保留了核心判决部分。最终输出为原始 HTML。没有使用 code fences。没有评论。所有脚注标记均已按照规则保留。意见正文严格遵循所提供的格式规范。
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P.
CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P.
CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P.
CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P.
CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P.
CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P.
CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P.
CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P.
CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P.
CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P.
CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P.
CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P.
CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P.
CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P.
CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P.
CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P.
CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P.
CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P.
CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P.
CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P.
CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited
Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d 745, 746 [2014]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2011]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242 [2007]). However, on a defendant’s motion, the burden is on the defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 847 [2015]; Citibank, N.A. v Herman, 125 AD3d 587, 588-589 [2015]).
A plaintiff has standing to commence a foreclosure action when it is either the holder or the assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 279-280). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v 36-02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 AD3d at 746-747; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Spanos, 102 AD3d 909, 912 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d 680, 682 [2012]; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281).
Here, Green failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for lack of standing, since he failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the subject note was physically delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Haller, 100 AD3d at 683-684). Accordingly, Green’s motion was properly denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
DILLON, J.P.
CHAMBERS, HALL AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Formerly Known as BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee on Behalf of CITI MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, Respondent, v ERNEST GREEN, Appellant, et al., Defendants
[17 NYS3d 651]
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
October 14, 2015
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ernest Green appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated July 23, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage secured by real property owned by the defendant Ernest Green. Green served an answer asserting, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action. Green thereafter moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing.
Initially, since Green’s motion, which recited