BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Rychik

• Decision Date: 16 May 2018
• Docket Number: Index No.12660/10,2015–01703
• Citation: 77 N.Y.S.3d 522,161 A.D.3d 924
• Parties: BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, etc., respondent, v. Nili RYCHIK, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

161 A.D.3d 924

77 N.Y.S.3d 522

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, etc., respondent,

v.Nili RYCHIK, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.

2015–01703

Index No.12660/10

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Decided on May 16, 2018

Michael M. Cohen, Brooklyn, NY, for appellants.

Frenkel Lambert Weiss Weisman & Gordon, LLP (Bryan Cave LLP, New York, N.Y. [Suzanne M. Berger and Megan A. Pierson ], of counsel), for respondent.

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, BETSY BARROS, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Nili Rychik and Shmuel Rychik appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Peter P. Sweeney, J.), dated October 20, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the cross motion of those defendants which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of standing.

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

In February 2008, Nili Rychik and Shmuel Rychik (hereinafter together the defendants) executed a note in the sum of $864,000 in favor of Countrywide Bank, FSB (hereinafter Countrywide). The note was secured by a mortgage on residential property located in Brooklyn. In February 2010, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for Countrywide, assigned the mortgage to the plaintiff, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, formerly known as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP. In May 2010, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants, among others, to foreclose the mortgage. The defendants served an answer in which they asserted the affirmative defense of lack of standing. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint and for an order of reference. The defendants cross-moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing. In an order dated October 20, 2014, the Supreme Court denied the motion and the cross motion. The defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the order as denied that branch of their cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of standing.

On a defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint based upon the plaintiff's alleged lack of standing, the burden is on the moving defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff's lack of standing (see DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. v. Pittman, 150 A.D.3d 818, 820, 56 N.Y.S.3d 120 ; New York Community Bank v. McClendon, 138 A.D.3d 805, 806, 29 N.Y.S.3d 507 ; Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Green, 132 A.D.3d 706, 707, 17 N.Y.S.3d 651 ). A plaintiff has standing to maintain a mortgage foreclosure action where, at the time the action was commenced, it was either the holder or assignee of the underlying note (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Taylor, 25 N.Y.3d 355, 361–362, 12 N.Y.S.3d 612, 34 N.E.3d 363 ; U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Noble, 144 A.D.3d 786, 787, 41 N.Y.S.3d 76 ; U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Collymore, 68 A.D.3d 752, 753–754, 890 N.Y.S.2d 578 ). 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, and the...