midpage

JPMorgan Chase Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Mi Hyang YangJPMorgan Chase Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Mi Hyang Yang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Mar 6, 2019
2016-11651
Versions:170 A.D.3d 694
95 N.Y.S.3d 295
2019 NY Slip Op 1580
2019 NY Slip Op 01580
p>null

Allen A. Kolber, Suffern, NY, for appellant.

Fein, Such & Crane, LLP (Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLC, New York, NY [Scott W. Parker], of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Mi Hyang Yang appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Gerald E. Loehr, J.), dated September 28, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiff‘s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant and for an order of reference.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff, the originator of the mortgage loan in question, commenced this mortgage foreclosure action in May 2013 and annexed a copy of the note, endorsed in blank, to the complaint. The defendant Mi Hyang Yang (hereinafter the defendant) interposed an answer generally denying the allegations in the complaint and asserting various affirmative defenses, including lack of standing. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant and for an order of reference. The Supreme Court granted that relief, and the defendant appeals.

“Generally, in moving for summary judgment in an action to foreclose a mortgage, a plaintiff establishes its prima facie case through the production of the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of default‘” (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Brewton, 142 AD3d 683, 684, quoting Plaza Equities, LLC v Lamberti, 118 AD3d 688, 689). However, where a defendant places standing in issue, the plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Brewton, 142 AD3d at 684; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 114 AD3d 627, 628, affd 25 NY3d 355; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242).

Here, the plaintiff, who is the original lender, established its standing to commence the action by demonstrating that it was the originator of the loan and still had physical possession of the note at the time it commenced the action, as evidenced by its attachment of a copy of the note to its complaint (see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Theobalds, 161 AD3d 1137, 1138; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Carlin, 152 AD3d 491, 492; U.S. Bank N.A. v Saravanan, 146 AD3d 1010, 1011; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Weinberger, 142 AD3d 643, 645). The plaintiff further sustained its burden of demonstrating its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting copies of the mortgage, the note, and evidence of the defendant‘s default in repaying the mortgage loan (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Saravanan, 146 AD3d at 1011).

In opposition, the defendant asserted that plaintiff sold the note to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (hereinafter Freddie Mac) and therefore did not have standing. In reply, the plaintiff acknowledged that Freddie Mac “may have indeed purchased this loan following origination, and that [the] plaintiff became the servicer of the loan.” However, the plaintiff retained possession of the original note and therefore retained standing (see Citimortgage, Inc. v Espinal, 134 AD3d 876, 880). Further, the plaintiff submitted evidence that under the Freddie Mac servicing guidelines, the plaintiff, as servicer of the loan, was obligated to initiate foreclosure proceedings in its own name and therefore retained standing (id.).

Since the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the plaintiff‘s prima facie showing, we agree with the Supreme Court‘s determination to grant those branches of the plaintiff‘s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant and for an order of reference.

RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, COHEN and HINDS-RADIX, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

turn-reward-叮叮叮 The user wants to convert a provided legal document (HTML source) into a clean, semantic HTML format following specific instructions. ### Metadata Extraction: - **Case Name**: JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, respondent, v Mi Hyang Yang, appellant, et al., defendants. - **Short Name**: JPMorgan Chase Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Mi Hyang Yang - **Docket**: 2016-11651 (Index No. 33184/13) - **Court**: Appellate Division, Second Department (N.Y. App. Div.) - **Date**: March 6, 2019 (2019-03-06) - **Citation**: 2019 NY Slip Op 01580 - **Judges**: REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX, JJ. - **Other Metadata**: Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. ### Structure: - `“, and the first star citation is 1, I‘ll use 1. - `[*2]` appears mid-paragraph. ### Refinement of citations: - `Judiciary Law § 431` -> `Judiciary Law § 431` - Case names in tags should have parties. - Parallel cites for Aurora: `affd, 25 NY3d 355` ### HTML Output check: - No code fences. - No commentary. - No `
`. - Correct attributes for case/law. Wait, `[*1]` is inside the caption block in the source. I should put `` right after the details tag. One detail: `[*1]` is positioned inside the case name in the source HTML. Per instructions, I remove caption blocks if already extracted, but I must preserve word order and pagination. Reflow: Rejoin “investi-\ngatory” etc. (None found here). ### Case Info block details: - `midpage-case-name`: “JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, respondent, v Mi Hyang Yang, appellant, et al., defendants.” - `shortName`: “JPMorgan Chase Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Mi Hyang Yang” - `midpage-docket`: “2016-11651” - `midpage-court`: “N.Y. App. Div.” - `midpage-date`: “2019-03-06” - `midpage-citation`: “2019 NY Slip Op 01580” Let‘s begin. The source has `[*1]` right before “JPMorgan Chase Bank...“. The source has `[*2]` right before “burden of demonstrating...“. Wait, I see a link in the source for the citation `Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Brewton`. It‘s `142 AD3d 683`. Citations: - `Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Brewton`, 142 AD3d 683 (2016) -> `Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Brewton, 142 AD3d 683, 684` - `Plaza Equities, LLC v Lamberti`, 118 AD3d 688 -> `Plaza Equities, LLC v Lamberti, 118 AD3d 688, 689` - `Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor`, 114 AD3d 627 -> `Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 114 AD3d 627, 628` - `affd 25 NY3d 355` -> `affd 25 NY3d 355` The `Judiciary Law § 431` is in the metadata. Should I wrap it in `` inside `

`? The instructions don‘t explicitly forbid it, but usually, metadata is cleaner. I‘ll wrap it just in case. Signature: ```html

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

``` Final verification: - No `br`. - Semantic tags. - Verbatim text. - Pagination markers. - Citation wrapping. Wait, I should check the date for Aurora (25 NY3d 355). It‘s 2015. Brewton: 2016. Mastropaolo: 2007. Theobalds: 2018. Carlin: 2017. Saravanan: 2017. Weinberger: 2016. Espinal: 2015. Formatting Note: `[*1]` is in the middle of a div. I‘ll just place the page marker at the start of the content as per the instructions “Always start with immediately after “. The source content starts with the caption. Since I extract it, the first text after metadata will be the attorney listings. One more thing: the prompt says “If input is not a legal opinion, return only: `null`“. This is clearly a legal opinion from the NY Appellate Division. Citations: - `Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Theobalds`, 161 AD3d 1137, 1138 -> `Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Theobalds, 161 AD3d 1137, 1138` - `Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Carlin`, 152 AD3d 491, 492 -> `Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Carlin, 152 AD3d 491, 492` - `U.S. Bank N.A. v Saravanan`, 146 AD3d 1010, 1011 -> `U.S. Bank N.A. v Saravanan, 146 AD3d 1010, 1011` - `JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Weinberger`, 142 AD3d 643, 645 -> `JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Weinberger, 142 AD3d 643, 645` - `Citimortgage, Inc. v Espinal`, 134 AD3d 876, 880 -> `Citimortgage, Inc. v Espinal, 134 AD3d 876, 880` Short forms: - `Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Brewton`, 142 AD3d at 684 -> `Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Brewton, 142 AD3d at 684` - `U.S. Bank N.A. v Saravanan`, 146 AD3d at 1011 -> `U.S. Bank N.A. v Saravanan, 146 AD3d at 1011` `[*2]` appears just after the citation to Saravanan: `...1011; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Weinberger, 142 AD3d 643, 645). The plaintiff further sustained its [*2] burden of demonstrating...` So: `

...JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Weinberger, 142 AD3d 643, 645). The plaintiff further sustained its burden of demonstrating its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting copies of the mortgage, the note, and evidence of the defendant‘s default in repaying the mortgage loan (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Saravanan, 146 AD3d at 1011).

` Wait, the source says: `The plaintiff further sustained its [*2]burden of demonstrating`. I will place the marker there. `id.` -> `(id.)` `id.` Wait, the short cite in text is `(id.)`. Actually, looking at the source: `...retained standing (see Citimortgage, Inc. v Espinal, 134 AD3d 876, 880). Further, the plaintiff submitted evidence that under the Freddie Mac servicing guidelines, the plaintiff, as servicer of the loan, was obligated to initiate foreclosure proceedings in its own name and therefore retained standing (id.).` The second one is `(id.)`. Final cleanup.

Case Details

Case Name: JPMorgan Chase Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Mi Hyang Yang
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Mar 6, 2019
Citations: 170 A.D.3d 694; 95 N.Y.S.3d 295; 2019 NY Slip Op 1580; 2019 NY Slip Op 01580; 2016-11651
Docket Number: 2016-11651
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
Log In