Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. LaPorte, 2016–01171

Decision Date13 June 2018
Docket Number2016–01172,Index No. 5917/14,2016–01171
Citation79 N.Y.S.3d 70,162 A.D.3d 784
Parties NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, respondent, v. Carole LAPORTE, appellant, et al., defendants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Harvey Sorid, Uniondale, NY, for appellant.

Shapiro, DiCaro, Barak, LLC (Sandelands Eyet LLP, New York, N.Y. [Margaret S. Stefandl], of counsel), for respondent.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Carole LaPorte appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Thomas A. Adams, J.), entered October 13, 2015, and October 15, 2015, respectively. The order entered October 13, 2015, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Carole LaPorte and for an order of reference. The order entered October 15, 2015, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Carole LaPorte and for an order of reference, struck her answer, and appointed a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiff.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order entered October 13, 2015, is dismissed, as the portions of the order appealed from were superseded by the order entered October 15, 2015; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order entered October 15, 2015, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

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

The plaintiff commenced this mortgage foreclosure action against the defendant Carole LaPorte (hereinafter the defendant), among others. The defendant interposed an answer with various affirmative defenses, including the plaintiff's failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 and its lack of standing to commence the action. 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 defendant opposed the motion, and cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. By order entered October 13, 2015, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion and denied the defendant's cross motion. By order entered October 15, 2015, the court, inter alia, granted 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, struck her answer, and appointed a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiff. The defendant appeals, arguing that the court should have denied those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against her and for an order of reference on the ground that the plaintiff failed to eliminate triable issues of fact with regard to its standing and its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304.

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 A.D.3d 683, 684, 37 N.Y.S.3d 25 ; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Taylor, 114 A.D.3d 627, 628, 980 N.Y.S.2d 475, affd 25 N.Y.3d 355, 12 N.Y.S.3d 612, 34 N.E.3d 363 ; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v. Mastropaolo, 42 A.D.3d 239, 242, 837 N.Y.S.2d 247 ). 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 (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Taylor, 25 N.Y.3d at 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). "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 mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident" ( U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Collymore, 68 A.D.3d 752, 754, 890 N.Y.S.2d 578 ; see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Taylor, 25 N.Y.3d at 361–362, 12 N.Y.S.3d 612, 34 N.E.3d 363 ; Dyer Trust 2012–1 v. Global World Realty, Inc., 140 A.D.3d 827, 828, 33 N.Y.S.3d 414 ).

Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, in support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff established its standing as the holder of the note when the action was commenced by its attachment of a copy of the note, endorsed in blank, to the summons and complaint at the time the action was commenced (see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Coppola, 156 A.D.3d 934, 68 N.Y.S.3d 120 ; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Carlin, 152 A.D.3d 491, 492, 61 N.Y.S.3d 16 ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Thomas, 150 A.D.3d 1312, 1313, 52 N.Y.S.3d 894 ; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Saravanan, 146 A.D.3d 1010, 1011, 45 N.Y.S.3d 547 ; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Weinberger, 142 A.D.3d 643, 645, 37 N.Y.S.3d 286 ; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Leigh, 137 A.D.3d 841, 842, 28 N.Y.S.3d 86 ). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 ).

"[P]roper service of RPAPL 1304 notice on the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Grennan
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • September 25, 2019
    ...see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Cope , 175 A.D.3d 527, 527–30, 107 N.Y.S.3d 104, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 06111, *1–2 ; Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. LaPorte , 162 A.D.3d 784, 785, 79 N.Y.S.3d 70 ; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Henry , 157 A.D.3d 839, 841–842, 69 N.Y.S.3d 656 ; Investors Sav. Bank v. Salas , 152 A.D.3d 752......
  • Citibank, N.A. v. Conti-Scheurer
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 17, 2019
    ...its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 (see U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Cope, 167 A.D.3d 965, 90 N.Y.S.3d 227 ; Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. LaPorte, 162 A.D.3d 784, 79 N.Y.S.3d 70 ; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Henry, 157 A.D.3d 839, 841, 69 N.Y.S.3d 656 ; Investors Sav. Bank v. Salas, 152 A.D.3d 752, 753, 5......
  • U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Bochicchio
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 29, 2020
    ...In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to compliance with RPAPL 1304 (see Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. LaPorte, 162 A.D.3d 784, 786, 79 N.Y.S.3d 70 ). Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, he failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide ......
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Stroman
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • March 9, 2020
    ...the Plaintiff must prove that it was the "...holder or assignee of the note at the time the action is commenced". Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. LaPorte, 162 A.D.3d 784, - N.Y.S.3d - (2d Dept., 2018); see, Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Taylor, 25 N.Y.3d 355, 34 N.E.3d 363 (2015). Once standing ha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • 13.11 A. 90-Day Notice For Home Loans
    • United States
    • New York State Bar Association Real Estate Titles (NY) Chapter 13 Mortgage Foreclosures and Other Actions Affecting Title
    • Invalid date
    ...Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Aquino, 131 A.D.3d 1186, 1186–1187, 16 N.Y.S.3d 770 (2d Dep’t 2015).[2093] . Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. LaPorte, 162 A.D.3d 784, 79 N.Y.S.3d 70 (2d Dep’t 2018); Zavolunov, 157 A.D.3d 754; HSBC Bank v. Kirschenbaum, 159 A.D.3d 506, 73 N.Y.S.3d 41 (1st Dep’t 2018); Ban......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT