However, where a defendant has affirmatively pleaded standing in the Answer, the plaintiff must prove standing in order to prevail. Bank of New York Mellon v. Gordon , 171 A.D.3d 197, 202, 97 N.Y.S.3d 286, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 02306, 2019 WL 1372075, at *3 [2nd Dept. March 27, 2019] (citing HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Roumiantseva , 130 A.D.3d 983, 983—984, 15 N.Y.S.3d 117 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Calderon , 115 A.D.3d 708, 709, 981 N.Y.S.2d 598 ; Bank of NY v. Silverberg , 86 A.D.3d 274, 279, 926 N.Y.S.2d 532 ).

With respect to the branch of the motion by plaintiff for summary judgment against defendants Cole and Moonachi, a plaintiff establishes its case as a matter of law through the production of the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of default (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Erobobo, 127 AD3d 1176, 1176 [2d Dept 2015]; Argent Mtge. Co., LLC v Mentesana, 79 AD3d 1079, 1080 [2d Dept 2010]). Where standing is at issue, the plaintiff seeking summary judgment must prove its standing as part of its prima facie showing (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Roumiantseva, 130 AD3d 983 [2d Dept 2015]; Loancare v Firshing, 130 AD3d 787, 789 [2d Dept 2015]; Wachovia Mtge. Corp. v Lopa, 129 AD3d 830, 830-831 [2d Dept 2015]) by demonstrating that it is either the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Roumiantseva, 130 AD3d at 984; see Aurora Loan Servs, LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]; Loancare v Firshing, 130 AD3d at 789). " 'The plaintiff may demonstrate that it is the holder or assignee of the underlying note by showing either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note' " (HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Roumiantseva, 130 AD3d at 984, quoting U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 AD3d 845, 846-847 [2d Dept 2015]).

In concluding that the plaintiff established its entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of standing in this case, the majority not only eschews the bedrock principles that govern an award of summary judgment (requiring the movant to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submission of admissible evidence in support of its motion [seeWinegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 ; DeGiorgio v. Racanelli, 136 A.D.3d 734, 738, 25 N.Y.S.3d 282 ] ), it reaches a conclusion not supported by the record—that the plaintiff "had physical possession of a note endorsed in blank," and the majority ignores the documents in the record submitted by the plaintiff, which flatly contradict each other on the issue of the plaintiff's standing and raise triable issues of fact necessitating a trial. The plaintiff failed to show that the note was properly endorsed and, thus, validly transferred to it (seeHSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Roumiantseva, 130 A.D.3d 983, 984–985, 15 N.Y.S.3d 117 ; Slutsky v. Blooming Grove Inn, 147 A.D.2d 208, 211–212, 542 N.Y.S.2d 721 ). The note itself provides that it is payable to Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (hereinafter Countrywide), not the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as it was related to the defendant Jovan Francois (hereinafter the appellant) and denied the appellant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. A plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action establishes its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by producing the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of the defendant's default (see Loancare v Firshing, 130 AD3d 787, 788; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Erobobo, 127 AD3d 1176, 1177; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v DeSouza, 126 AD3d 965; Citimortgage, Inc. v Chow Ming Tung, 126 AD3d 841, 842; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Weinman, 123 AD3d 1108, 1109). Where, as here, a defendant challenges the plaintiff's standing to maintain the action, the plaintiff must also prove its standing as part of its prima facie showing (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Roumiantseva, 130 AD3d 983; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Baptiste, 128 AD3d 773, 774; Plaza Equities, LLC v Lamberti, 118 AD3d 688, 689). A plaintiff establishes its standing in a mortgage foreclosure action by demonstrating that it is the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Bank of Am., N.A. v Paulsen, 125 AD3d 909, 910; US Bank NA v Faruque, 120 AD3d 575, 577). Contrary to the appellant's contention, the plaintiff established its standing as the holder of the note by submitting the affidavit of its representative demonstrating that the note was physically delivered to it and remained in its possession at the time this foreclosure action was commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361-362; Loancare v Firshing, 130 AD3d at 788; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Sage, 112 AD3d 1126, 1127).

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Michael Idarecis, to strike the answer and affirmative defenses of the defendant Michael Idarecis, and for the appointment of a referee to compute the amount due are denied. Where, as here, the plaintiff's standing is placed in issue by the defendant's answer, a plaintiff must prove its standing as part of its prima facie showing on a motion for summary judgment (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Roumiantseva, 130 A.D.3d 983, 15 N.Y.S.3d 117; Loancare v. Firshing, 130 A.D.3d 787, 789, 14 N.Y.S.3d 410; Wachovia Mtge. Corp. v. Lopa, 129 A.D.3d 830, 830–831, 13 N.Y.S.3d 97). “A plaintiff establishes its standing in a mortgage foreclosure action by demonstrating that it is either the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced” (HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Roumiantseva, 130 A.D.3d at 984, 15 N.Y.S.3d 117; see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Taylor, 25 N.Y.3d 355, 361, 12 N.Y.S.3d 612, 34 N.E.3d 363; Loancare v. Firshing, 130 A.D.3d at 789). “ ‘The plaintiff may demonstrate that it is the holder or assignee of the underlying note by showing either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note’ ” (HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Roumiantseva, 130 A.D.3d at 984, 15 N.Y.S.3d 117, quoting U.S. Bank N.A. v. Guy, 125 A.D.3d 845, 846–847, 5 N.Y.S.3d 116).

Discussion "On a defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3:211(a) (3) to dismiss the complaint based upon the plaintiffs alleged lack of standing, 'the burden is on the moving defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiffs lack of standing as a matter of law'" (Bank of New York Mellon v Chamouia, 170 A.D.3d 788, 789-790 [2019]; Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas v Vifelfas, 131 A.D.3d 52, 59 [2015] [same]; MSEC Bank USA, Nat. Ass'n v Roumiantseva, 130 A.D.3d 983, 984 [2015]; GS. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 A.D.3d 845, 847 [2015]). "To defeat a defendant's motion, the plaintiff has no burden of establishing its standing as: a matter of law; rather, the motion will be defeated if the plaintiffs submissions raise a question of fact as to its standing'- (Bank of New York Mellon v.Chamouia, 170 A.D.3d at 790 [internal quotation marks omitted]; Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas v Vitellas, 131 A.D.3d at 60 [holding that "the (CPLR 3211 [a] [3]) motion will be defeated if the plaintiff s submissions raise a question of fact as to its standing"]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Guy, 125 A.D.3d at 847).

On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss a complaint based upon the plaintiff's alleged lack of standing, defendants must demonstrate, prima facie, the plaintiff's lack of standing as a matter of law (seeBank of N.Y. Mellon v. Chamoula, 170 A.D.3d 788, 789–790, 96 N.Y.S.3d 148 ; New York Community Bank v. McClendon, 138 A.D.3d 805, 806, 29 N.Y.S.3d 507 ). If the defendants meet their prima facie burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise a question of fact as to its standing (seeDeutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Vitellas, 131 A.D.3d 52, 60, 13 N.Y.S.3d 163 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Roumiantseva, 130 A.D.3d 983, 984, 15 N.Y.S.3d 117 ). "[T]he note, and not the mortgage, is the dispositive instrument that conveys standing to foreclose under New York law" ( Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Taylor, 25 N.Y.3d 355, 361, 12 N.Y.S.3d 612, 34 N.E.3d 363 ).

Where there is no allonge or note that is either endorsed in blank or specially endorsed to the plaintiff, mere physical possession of a note at the commencement of a foreclosure action is insufficient to confer standing or to make a plaintiff the lawful holder of a negotiable instrument for the purposes of enforcing the note (seeMcCormack v. Maloney, 160 A.D.3d at 1100, 75 N.Y.S.3d 294 ). Here, the plaintiff failed to show that the note was properly endorsed and thus validly transferred to it (seeHSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Roumiantseva, 130 A.D.3d 983, 984–985, 15 N.Y.S.3d 117 ; Slutsky v. Blooming Grove Inn, 147 A.D.2d 208, 211–212, 542 N.Y.S.2d 721 ). The note itself provides that it is payable to Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B., not the plaintiff.

"Moreover, [n]o special form or language is necessary to effect an assignment as long as the language shows the intention of the owner of a right to transfer it" (Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d at 280–281, 926 N.Y.S.2d 532 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Chase Home Fin., LLC v. Miciotta, 101 A.D.3d 1307, 956 N.Y.S.2d 271 ). However, "the mere assignment of the mortgage without an effective assignment of the underlying note is a nullity" (U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Collymore, 68 A.D.3d at 754, 890 N.Y.S.2d 578 ), and no interest is acquired by it because a mortgage is merely security for a debt or other obligation and cannot exist independently of the debt or obligation (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Roumiantseva, 130 A.D.3d 983, 984, 15 N.Y.S.3d 117 ; Citibank, N.A. v. Herman, 125 A.D.3d 587, 588, 3 N.Y.S.3d 379 ; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Spanos, 102 A.D.3d 909, 911, 961 N.Y.S.2d 200 ; Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d at 280, 926 N.Y.S.2d 532 ). "In the event that a note and mortgage are validly assigned to a third party subsequent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, ... the assignee can continue an action in the name of the original mortgagee, even in the absence of a formal substitution," or it may, "if it chooses, take the steps necessary to effect a formal substitution" (Brighton BK, LLC v. Kurbatsky, 131 A.D.3d 1000, 1001, 17 N.Y.S.3d 137 ; see Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Holmes, 131 A.D.3d 680, 681–682, 17 N.Y.S.3d 31 ).

However, the transfer of the mortgage without the debt is a ity, and no interest is acquired by it ... because a mortgage is merely security for a debt or other obligation and cannot exist independently of the debt or obligation” (Citibank, N.A. v. Herman, 125 A.D.3d 587, 588, 3 N.Y.S.3d 379 [citations omitted]; see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Spanos, 102 A.D.3d 909, 911, 961 N.Y.S.2d 200 ; Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d 274, 280, 926 N.Y.S.2d 532 ). On a defendant's motion to dismiss a complaint based upon the plaintiff's alleged lack of standing, the burden is on the moving defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff's lack of standing as a matter of law (see New York Community Bank v. McClendon, 138 A.D.3d at 806, 29 N.Y.S.3d 507 ; Arch Bay Holdings, LLC–Series 2010B v. Smith, 136 A.D.3d 719, 719, 24 N.Y.S.3d 533 ; Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Vitellas, 131 A.D.3d 52, 59–60, 13 N.Y.S.3d 163 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Roumiantseva, 130 A.D.3d 983, 984, 15 N.Y.S.3d 117 ; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Guy, 125 A.D.3d at 847, 5 N.Y.S.3d 116 ). “To defeat a defendant's motion, the plaintiff has no burden of establishing its standing as a matter of law; rather, the motion will be defeated if the plaintiff's submissions raise a question of fact as to its standing” (Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Vitellas, 131 A.D.3d at 60, 13 N.Y.S.3d 163 ; see Arch Bay Holdings, LLC–Series 2010B v. Smith, 136 A.D.3d at 719, 24 N.Y.S.3d 533; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Roumiantseva, 130 A.D.3d at 984, 15 N.Y.S.3d 117 ; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Guy, 125 A.D.3d at 847, 5 N.Y.S.3d 116 ).