Bank of Am., N.A. v. Dudkevich

199 A.D.3d 628

157 N.Y.S.3d 70

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., respondent,

v.Alexander DUDKEVICH, et al., defendants,Cintia Dudkevich, etc., appellant.

2019–08756

Index No. 513357/15

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—October 8, 2021

November 3, 2021

Cintia Dudkevich, Brooklyn, NY, appellant pro se.

Bonchonsky & Zaino, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Christopher J.W. Verby and Peter Bonchonsky of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, LARA J. GENOVESI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Cintia Dudkevich appeals from an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Noach Dear, J.), dated May 23, 2019. The order and judgment of foreclosure and sale, upon an order of the same court dated November 27, 2017, granting those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant, to strike that defendant's answer, and for an order of reference, inter alia, confirmed the referee's report and directed the sale of the subject property.

ORDERED that the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale is affirmed, with costs.

On or about October 14, 2015, the plaintiff commenced the instant action against the defendant Cintia Dudkevich (hereinafter the defendant) and others to foreclose a mortgage encumbering certain real property located in Brooklyn. The defendant served an answer raising various affirmative defenses, including lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of standing. In May 2017, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant, to strike the defendant's answer, and for an order of reference. The defendant opposed the motion. In an order dated November 27, 2017, the Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiff subsequently moved for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. In an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale dated May 23, 2019, the court, among other things, granted the plaintiff's motion, confirmed the referee's report, and directed the sale of the subject property.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, its standing to commence the action, as evidenced by its attachment of the note, endorsed in blank, to the summons and complaint at the time the action was commenced (see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Rowe, 194 A.D.3d 978, 980, 149 N.Y.S.3d 197 ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Kohli, 173 A.D.3d 941, 942, 104 N.Y.S.3d 124 ; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Roseman, 137 A.D.3d 1222, 1223, 29 N.Y.S.3d 380 ). "There is simply no requirement that an entity in possession of a negotiable instrument that has been endorsed in blank must establish how it came into possession of the instrument in order to...