TD Bank, N.A. v. Mandia

133 A.D.3d 590, 20 N.Y.S.3d 83
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 4, 2015
Docket2013-08629
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 133 A.D.3d 590 (TD Bank, N.A. v. Mandia) 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
TD Bank, N.A. v. Mandia, 133 A.D.3d 590, 20 N.Y.S.3d 83 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Robert Mandia and Connie Mandia appeal, as limited by their brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated February 11, 2013, as granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to reargue that branch of its prior motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint and its opposition to the cross motion of the defendants Robert Mandia and Connie Mandia for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, which had been determined in a prior order of the same court dated August 22, 2012, and, upon reargument, vacated the order dated August 22, 2012, and thereupon granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion and denied the cross motion, and (2) so much of an order of the same court dated April 3, 2013, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to appoint a referee to ascertain and compute the amount due.

Ordered that the orders dated February 11, 2013, and April 3, 2013, are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to reargue on the basis that the court, in determining that branch of the plaintiff’s prior motion which was for summary judgment on the *591 complaint, had overlooked one of the two affidavits of an employee of the plaintiff that had been submitted by the plaintiff (see CPLR 2221 [d]).

Thereafter, upon reargument, the Supreme Court properly awarded the plaintiff summary judgment on the complaint. Generally, “[i]n residential mortgage foreclosure actions ... a plaintiff establishes its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by producing the mortgage and the unpaid note, and evidence of the default” (Midfirst Bank v Agho, 121 AD3d 343, 347 [2014]; see W & H Equities LLC v Odums, 113 AD3d 840 [2014]; Washington Mut. Bank v Schenk, 112 AD3d 615, 616 [2013]). Here, the plaintiff submitted the mortgage and note, and evidence of default. Further, the plaintiff submitted prima facie proof that it properly mailed to the defendants Robert Mandia and Connie Mandia (hereinafter together the defendants) a notice of default and acceleration, and a notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304. In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see PHH Mtge. Corp. v Israel, 120 AD3d 1329 [2014]; see also U.S. Bank N.A. v Tate, 102 AD3d 859 [2013]).

“However, where, as here, standing has been made an issue, a plaintiff must also provide prima facie proof that it had standing to sue as of the time it commenced the action” (PNC Bank, N.A. v Klein, 125 AD3d 953, 954-955 [2015]; see Citimortgage, Inc. v Stosel, 89 AD3d 887, 888 [2011]). The plaintiff met this burden by submitting evidence showing that the initial mortgagee, Commerce Bank, N.A., merged in 2008 with the plaintiff TD Bank, N.A., whereupon TD Bank, N.A., became the holder of the note (see Banking Law § 602; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355 [2015]; PNC Bank, N.A. v Klein, 125 AD3d at 955). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see PNC Bank, N.A. v Klein, 125 AD3d at 955). Therefore, upon reargument, the Supreme Court properly rejected the defendants’ affirmative defense of lack of standing and granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Arias, 121 AD3d 973, 974 [2014]; Central Mtge. Co. v McClelland, 119 AD3d 885, 886 [2014]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions regarding the appointment of a referee, the service of a proposed order of reference, and the plaintiff’s failure to submit a complete copy of the original motion papers on its reargument motion, are without merit (see 22 NYCRR 202.48; CPLR 2221; Rostant v Swersky, 79 AD3d 456, 456-457 [2010]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2013 NY Slip Op 30337OJ).]

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

Related

Salami v. TD Bank
2024 NY Slip Op 51115(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bedell
2020 NY Slip Op 04890 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Osorio
2019 NY Slip Op 5383 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
True Health Pharmacy, Inc. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y.
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019
Moxey v. Payne
2018 NY Slip Op 8291 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Property Asset Mgt., Inc. v. Souffrant
2018 NY Slip Op 4582 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Phyllis Theobalds
2018 NY Slip Op 3824 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Rockefeller
2017 NY Slip Op 8348 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
HSBC Bank USA, National Ass'n v. Ozcan
2017 NY Slip Op 7242 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Ass'n v. Lilker
2017 NY Slip Op 6434 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
OneWest Bank, FSB v. Simpson
2017 NY Slip Op 1875 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Citigroup v. Kopelowitz
2017 NY Slip Op 1331 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Bank of New York Mellon v. Vytalingam
2016 NY Slip Op 8035 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Emigrant Bank v. Marando
2016 NY Slip Op 6801 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Rose Land & Finance Corp. v. Vassiliades
142 A.D.3d 658 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
RBS Citizens, N.A. v. Galperin
135 A.D.3d 735 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Everhome Mortgage Company v. Pettit
135 A.D.3d 1054 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
133 A.D.3d 590, 20 N.Y.S.3d 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/td-bank-na-v-mandia-nyappdiv-2015.