Opinion
2015-07-08
HSBC BANK, USA, etc., respondent, v. Robert HAGERMAN, et al., defendants, Annmarie Hagerman, etc., appellant.
Hanna & Vlahakis, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Derrick Hanna of counsel), for appellant. Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, New York, N.Y. (David Dunn, Chava Brandriss, and Michelle L. Moshe of counsel), for respondent.
Hanna & Vlahakis, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Derrick Hanna of counsel), for appellant. Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, New York, N.Y. (David Dunn, Chava Brandriss, and Michelle L. Moshe of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Annmarie Hagerman appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated November 12, 2013, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against her.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Annmarie Hagerman (hereinafter the appellant) by producing the mortgage, the note, and evidence of default ( see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Islar, 122 A.D.3d 566, 567, 996 N.Y.S.2d 130). Although the appellant placed the plaintiff's standing to commence the action in issue, the evidence the plaintiff submitted established that it had standing as both the holder and the assignee of the subject note and mortgage at the time the action was commenced ( see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Taylor, 25 N.Y.3d 355, –––N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04872, *3–4 [2015]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Baptiste, 128 A.D.3d 773, 10 N.Y.S.3d 255; cf. Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Burke, 125 A.D.3d 765, 766, 5 N.Y.S.3d 107). In opposition, the appellant's bald assertion of forgery was not sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Banco Popular N. Am. v. Victory Taxi Mgt., 1 N.Y.3d 381, 384, 774 N.Y.S.2d 480, 806 N.E.2d 488; Beitner v. Becker, 34 A.D.3d 406, 408, 824 N.Y.S.2d 155).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellant.