Opinion
12947 12947A Index No. 850096/15 Case No. 2020-02666
01-26-2021
The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, formerly known as The Bank of New York, etc., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Susan O'CALLAHAN, Defendant–Appellant, New York City Parking Violations Bureau, et al., Defendants.
Law Offices of Christopher Thompson, West Islip (Christopher Thompson of counsel), for appellant. Davidson Fink LLP, Rochester (Ashley E. Ragan of counsel), for respondent.
Law Offices of Christopher Thompson, West Islip (Christopher Thompson of counsel), for appellant.
Davidson Fink LLP, Rochester (Ashley E. Ragan of counsel), for respondent.
Gische, J.P., Kern, Moulton, Shulman, JJ.
Amended order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered December 2, 2019, which to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff bank's cross motion for summary judgment as against defendant Susan O'Callahan, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered November 7, 2019, which ordered that the court was preparing an order with respect to the hearing and summary judgment motion, unanimously dismissed, without costs.
Plaintiff established standing to commence this foreclosure action by submitting a copy of the mortgage, a copy of the note, indorsed in blank, on which it is undisputed that defendant defaulted, and a copy of the mortgage assignment, all of which were attached to the complaint (see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Hossain, 177 A.D.3d 547, 548, 112 N.Y.S.3d 729 [1st Dept. 2019] ; Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v. Moran, 175 A.D.3d 1196, 106 N.Y.S.3d 857 [1st Dept. 2019] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the indorsement in blank was not affixed to an allonge but was instead "Page 4 of 4" of the subject note. By defendant's own admission, the mortgaged property was not her primary residence, and thus the mortgage was not a "home loan" for purposes of RPAPL 1304(6)(a)(1)(iii). Plaintiff demonstrated its compliance with the notice provisions contained in the mortgage.
"[T]he record affords no non-speculative ground" for defendant's belief that further discovery would "yield evidence supportive of a different conclusion" ( Turbel v. Societe Generale, 276 A.D.2d 446, 447, 716 N.Y.S.2d 563 [1st Dept. 2000] ).