Ocwen Federal Bank FSB v. Miller

18 A.D.3d 527, 794 N.Y.S.2d 650, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5068
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 9, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 527 (Ocwen Federal Bank FSB v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ocwen Federal Bank FSB v. Miller, 18 A.D.3d 527, 794 N.Y.S.2d 650, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5068 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Jeffrey Miller and Elizabeth Miller appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered August 27, 2003, as granted those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against them and dismissing their counterclaims, and for the appointment of a referee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

To establish a prima facie case in an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff must establish the existence of the mortgage and mortgage note, its ownership of the mortgage, and the defendant’s default in payment (see First Union Mtge. Corp. v Fern, 298 AD2d 490 [2002]; Miller Planning Corp. v Wells, 253 AD2d 859 [1998]; Mahopac Natl. Bank v Baisley, 244 AD2d 466 [1997]).

Here, the plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the defendants Jeffrey Miller and Elizabeth Miller, in opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellants and properly directed the appointment of a referee.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

US Bank Trust N.A. v. Nieves
2026 NY Slip Op 30232(U) (New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County, 2026)
Balsam v. Fioriglio
41 Misc. 3d 361 (New York Supreme Court, 2013)
U.S. Bank, National Ass'n v. Sharif
89 A.D.3d 723 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Zanfini v. Chandler
79 A.D.3d 1031 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
US Bank N.A. v. Flynn
27 Misc. 3d 802 (New York Supreme Court, 2010)
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. FM Realty Enterprises, LLC
64 A.D.3d 672 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Powell
18 Misc. 3d 228 (New York Supreme Court, 2007)
Campaign v. Barba
23 A.D.3d 327 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 A.D.3d 527, 794 N.Y.S.2d 650, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ocwen-federal-bank-fsb-v-miller-nyappdiv-2005.