Opinion
8535 8536 Index 32293/16
02-26-2019
HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Hardy MAHADEO, etc., Defendant–Appellant, Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. et al., Defendants.
Hardy Mahadeo, appellant pro se. Knuckels Komosinski & Manfro, LLP, Elmsford (Gregg L. Verrilli of counsel), for respondent.
Hardy Mahadeo, appellant pro se.
Knuckels Komosinski & Manfro, LLP, Elmsford (Gregg L. Verrilli of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Richter, Tom, Kahn, Moulton, JJ.
Regardless of the timeliness of defendant's appeal from the 2017 order or the propriety of plaintiff's service of notice of the entry of the November 2017 order on him, on the merits, defendant's argument that plaintiff lacks standing is unavailing. To establish standing, plaintiff was required to show either assignment of the mortgage note or physical delivery of the note before the foreclosure action was commenced (see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Askew, 138 A.D.3d 402, 27 N.Y.S.3d 856 [1st Dept. 2016] ). Plaintiff did both.
Although defendant styled his second motion as a motion to reargue/renew, he submitted no new facts. Therefore, the motion was a motion to reargue, and no appeal lies from the denial of reargument (see Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp. v. Platt, 138 A.D.3d 500, 28 N.Y.S.3d 307 [1st Dept. 2016] ).