From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Putnam Cnty. Sav. Bank v. Mastrantone

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 27, 2013
111 A.D.3d 914 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-11-27

PUTNAM COUNTY SAVINGS BANK, respondent, v. Matthew MASTRANTONE, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.

Matthew Mastrantone and Janine Mastrantone, Garrison, N.Y., appellants pro se. Daniels, Porco and Lusardi, LLP, Carmel, N.Y. (Robert C. Lusardi of counsel), for respondent.


Matthew Mastrantone and Janine Mastrantone, Garrison, N.Y., appellants pro se. Daniels, Porco and Lusardi, LLP, Carmel, N.Y. (Robert C. Lusardi of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Matthew Mastrantone and Janine Mastrantone appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Nicolai, J.), entered April 3, 2012, as, upon an order of the same court dated January 5, 2012, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them.

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

The plaintiff met its initial burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by producing the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of the appellants' default ( see Bank of Smithtown v. 219 Sagg Main, LLC, 107 A.D.3d 654, 968 N.Y.S.2d 95; Solomon v. Burden, 104 A.D.3d 839, 961 N.Y.S.2d 535; Citibank, N.A. v. Van Brunt Props., LLC, 95 A.D.3d 1158, 945 N.Y.S.2d 330). In opposition, the appellants failed to raise a triable issue of fact relating to any bona fide defense to foreclosure ( see Bank of Smithtown v. 219 Sagg Main, LLC, 107 A.D.3d at 655, 968 N.Y.S.2d 95; Solomon v. Burden, 104 A.D.3d at 839–840, 961 N.Y.S.2d 535; Baron Assoc., LLC v. Garcia Group Enters., Inc., 96 A.D.3d 793, 946 N.Y.S.2d 611). With respect to their affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction on the basis of improper service of process, the appellants failed to move to dismiss the complaint on that ground within 60 days after serving their answer and, therefore, they waived that defense ( see JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Munoz, 85 A.D.3d 1124, 1126–1127, 927 N.Y.S.2d 364; CPLR 3211[e] ).

The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit. DILLON, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, DICKERSON and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Putnam Cnty. Sav. Bank v. Mastrantone

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 27, 2013
111 A.D.3d 914 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Putnam Cnty. Sav. Bank v. Mastrantone

Case Details

Full title:PUTNAM COUNTY SAVINGS BANK, respondent, v. Matthew MASTRANTONE, et al.…

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

Date published: Nov 27, 2013

Citations

111 A.D.3d 914 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
111 A.D.3d 914
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7954

Citing Cases

Wells Fargo Bank v. Musco

Such evidence demonstrates that the plaintiff holds and/or owns the original note and mortgage. An…

Vanderbilt Mortg. & Fin., Inc. v. Cushion

In addition, inasmuch as there was physical delivery of the note, and the mortgage passes as an incident to…