Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Vorobyov

• Decision Date: 12 November 2020
• Docket Number: 2017–13303,Index No. 8175/09
• Citation: 188 A.D.3d 803,136 N.Y.S.3d 81
• Parties: COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., appellant, v. Mykhaylo VOROBYOV, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

188 A.D.3d 803

136 N.Y.S.3d 81

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., appellant,

v.Mykhaylo VOROBYOV, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.

2017–13303

Index No. 8175/09

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

Argued—March 30, 2020

November 12, 2020

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, New York, N.Y. (Robert N. Rothberg, Suzanne M. Berger, and Elizabeth Goldberg of counsel), for appellant.

Karasik Law Group, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Alexander Karasik of counsel), for respondents.

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Lawrence Knipel, J.), dated September 20, 2017.The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendantsMykhaylo Vorobyov and Iryna Vorobyova and dismissing their affirmative defenses and counterclaims, for an order of reference, for leave to amend the caption to substitute Bank of America, N.A., as the plaintiff in the action and to delete the name "John Doe" as a defendant, and for leave to enter a default judgment against the remaining defendants.

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, (1) by deleting the provision thereof denying those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the second, sixth, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, and twenty-first affirmative defenses, as well as the counterclaims, asserted by the defendantsMykhaylo Vorobyov and Iryna Vorobyova, and substituting therefor a provision granting those branches of the motion, (2) by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to amend the caption to substitute Bank of America, N.A., as the plaintiff in the action and to delete the name "John Doe" as a defendant, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion, and (3) by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against all of the defendants other than Mykhaylo Vorobyov and Iryna Vorobyova, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendantsMykhaylo Vorobyov and Iryna Vorobyova.

On March 20, 2007, the defendantMykhaylo Vorobyov executed a note in favor of America's Wholesale Lender.The note was secured by a mortgage signed by Mykhaylo and the defendantIryna Vorobyova, encumbering a residential condominium unit in Brooklyn.In April 2009, the plaintiff commenced this action against Mykhaylo and Iryna, among others, to foreclose the mortgage.Those defendants interposed an answer to the complaint in which they asserted various affirmative defenses, including lack of standing, and counterclaims.Thereafter, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against Mykhaylo and Iryna and dismissing their affirmative defenses and counterclaims, for an order of reference, for leave to amend the caption to substitute Bank of America, N.A. (hereinafter BANA), as the plaintiff in the action and to delete the name "John Doe" as a defendant, and for leave to enter a default judgment against the remaining defendants.In an order dated September 20, 2017, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the plaintiff's motion.The plaintiff 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 (seeDeutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Brewton,142 A.D.3d 683, 684, 37 N.Y.S.3d 25;Plaza Equities, LLC v. Lamberti,118 A.D.3d 688, 689, 986 N.Y.S.2d 843 ).When a defendant has placed standing in issue, the plaintiff also must establish standing as part of its prima facie case (seeDeutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Bowens,181 A.D.3d 871, 873, 121 N.Y.S.3d 327;HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Campbell–Antoine,179 A.D.3d 1043, 1044, 118 N.Y.S.3d 134 ).A plaintiff has standing in a mortgage foreclosure action when it is the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (seeAurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Taylor,25 N.Y.3d 355, 361, 12 N.Y.S.3d 612, 34 N.E.3d 363;Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Brewton,142 A.D.3d at 684, 37 N.Y.S.3d 25 ).

In support of its motion, the plaintiff, to establish its standing to commence this action, submitted the note, which contained an undated endorsement in blank, and an affidavit from Jamie Cooper, an officer of the loan servicer.Cooper stated, based upon his review of the servicer's books, records, and files relating to the subject loan, that the "[p]laintiff received the original wet ink Note on or about March 26, 2007 and the original recorded Mortgage shortly thereafter," and that the "[p]laintiff had physical possession of the Note ... at the time the action was commenced on April 3, 2009."However, Cooper based his statements upon his review of unspecified business records without attaching or otherwise incorporating such business records to his affidavit."Evidence as to the content of business records is admissible only where the records themselves are introduced; without their introduction, a witness's testimony as to the contents of the records...