HSBC Mortg. Corp. v. MacPherson

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: WILLIAM F. MASTRO
• Citation: HSBC Mortg. Corp. v. MacPherson, 89 A.D.3d 1061, 934 N.Y.S.2d 428, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8726 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
• Decision Date: 29 November 2011
• Parties: HSBC MORTGAGE CORPORATION (USA), respondent, v. Donald MacPHERSON, appellant, et al., defendants.

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08726

89 A.D.3d 1061

934 N.Y.S.2d 428

HSBC MORTGAGE CORPORATION (USA), respondent,

v.Donald MacPHERSON, appellant, et al., defendants.

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

Nov. 29, 2011.

Irwin Popkin, Melville, N.Y., for appellant.

Steven J. Baum, P.C., Amherst, N.Y. (Casey E. Callahan of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SANDRA L. SGROI, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Donald MacPherson appeals from a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, Jr., J.), dated July 28, 2010, which, upon an order of the same court dated June 3, 2008, denying his motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of standing, and upon an order of the same court dated August 4, 2009, among other things, granting those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint upon his default in opposing the motion, inter alia, directed the sale of the subject premises.

ORDERED that the appeal from the judgment of foreclosure and sale is dismissed, except insofar as it brings up for review the order dated June 3, 2008, denying the motion of the defendant Donald MacPherson, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of standing; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment of foreclosure and sale is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage. The defendant Donald MacPherson (hereinafter the appellant) moved, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3), to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence this action. The Supreme Court denied the appellant's motion. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved for, among other things, summary judgment on the complaint. The appellant did not oppose the plaintiff's motion. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint, upon the appellant's default. Subsequently, the Supreme Court entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale. We affirm the judgment insofar as reviewed.

No appeal lies from an order or judgment made upon the default of the appealing party ( see CPLR 5511; Forma v. City of New York, 273 A.D.2d 271, 272, 710 N.Y.S.2d 534). Nonetheless, the appeal from a judgment brings up for review those “matters which were the subject of contest” before the Supreme Court ( James v. Powell, 19 N.Y.2d 249, 256 n. 3, 279 N.Y.S.2d 10, 225 N.E.2d 741; see Diamond v. Diamante, 57 A.D.3d 826, 826–827, 869 N.Y.S.2d 609; Katz v. Katz, 68 A.D.2d 536, 540, 418 N.Y.S.2d 99; see also Matter of Paulino v. Camacho, 36 A.D.3d 821, 822, 828 N.Y.S.2d 496; Tun v. Aw, 10 A.D.3d 651, 652, 782 N.Y.S.2d 96); Accordingly, in this case, review is limited to so much of the judgment as brings up for review the order dated June 3, 2008, denying the appellant's motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of standing ( see James v. Powell, 19 N.Y.2d at 256 n. 3, 279 N.Y.S.2d 10, 225 N.E.2d 741; Diamond v. Diamante, 57 A.D.3d at 826–827, 869 N.Y.S.2d 609; Katz v. Katz, 68 A.D.2d at 540, 418 N.Y.S.2d 99; see generally CPLR 5501[a][1]; Strathmore Ridge Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Mendicino, 63 A.D.3d 1038, 1039, 881 N.Y.S.2d 491; Matter of John John, LLC v. Planning Bd. of Town of Brookhaven, 15 A.D.3d 486, 486–487, 790 N.Y.S.2d 500).

Contrary to the appellant's contention, he failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that he was entitled to the dismissal of the...