Here, the plaintiff established, prima facie, its standing by annexing a copy of the CEMA and consolidated note, endorsed in blank, to the complaint. Although this argument apparently is raised for the first time on appeal, it involves a question of law that appears on the face of the record, and could not have been avoided if brought to the attention of the Supreme Court (seeU.S. Bank v. Norway Ave., LLC, 192 A.D.3d 722, 724, 139 N.Y.S.3d 557 ). The defendant's argument that the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against him because it failed to comply with Administrative Order 431/11 is without merit.
Here, the plaintiff established, prima facie, its standing by annexing a copy of the CEMA and consolidated note, endorsed in blank, to the complaint. Although this argument apparently is raised for the first time on appeal, it involves a question of law that appears on the face of the record, and could not have been avoided if brought to the attention of the Supreme Court (see U.S. Bank v Norway Ave., LLC, 192 A.D.3d 722, 724).
The defendant's evidence that the debt was accelerated by commencement of the 2009 action, which was later discontinued voluntarily, failed to raise a triable issue of fact that this action was time-barred (see Freedom Mtge. Corp. v Engel, 37 N.Y.3d at 19). Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that it sent the defendant a notice of default prior to commencing the action, as required by paragraphs 15 and 22 of the mortgage (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Norway Ave., LLC, 192 A.D.3d 722). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
The defendant's evidence that the debt was accelerated by commencement of the 2009 action, which was later discontinued voluntarily, failed to raise a triable issue of fact that this action was time-barred (see Freedom Mtge. Corp. v. Engel, 37 N.Y.3d at 19, 146 N.Y.S.3d 542, 169 N.E.3d 912). Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that it sent the defendant a notice of default prior to commencing the action, as required by paragraphs 15 and 22 of the mortgage (see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Norway Ave., LLC, 192 A.D.3d 722, 139 N.Y.S.3d 557). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Here, the plaintiff established, prima facie, its standing by annexing a copy of the CEMA and consolidated note, endorsed in blank, to the complaint. Although this argument apparently is raised for the first time on appeal, it involves a question of law that appears on the face of the record, and could not have been avoided if brought to the attention of the Supreme Court (see U.S. Bank v Norway Ave., LLC, 192 A.D.3d 722, 724). The defendant's argument that the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against him because it failed to comply with Administrative Order 431/11 is without merit.
The defendant's evidence that the debt was accelerated by commencement of the 2009 action, which was later discontinued voluntarily, failed to raise a triable issue of fact that this action was time-barred (see Freedom Mtge. Corp. v Engel, 37 N.Y.3d at 19). Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that it sent the defendant a notice of default prior to commencing the action, as required by paragraphs 15 and 22 of the mortgage (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Norway Ave., LLC, 192 A.D.3d 722). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.