Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Barry

189 A.D.3d 1665

135 N.Y.S.3d 274 (Mem)

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., respondent,

v.Carol BARRY, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.

2018–09497

2020–09018

Index No. 2841/13

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

Argued—September 22, 2020

December 30, 2020

R. David Marquez, P.C., Mineola, NY, for appellants.

Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP (Reed Smith LLP, New York, N.Y. [Andrew B. Messite, Brenda Beauchamp Ward, and James N. Faller ], of counsel), for respondent.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Carol Barry, Leila Barry, and Sean Pilgrim appeal from two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Noach Dear, J.), both dated April 23, 2018. The first order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Carol Barry, Leila Barry, and Sean Pilgrim, to strike those defendants' affirmative defenses alleging lack of standing and a failure to comply with RPAPL 1304, and for an order of reference. The second order, insofar as appealed from, granted the same relief and appointed a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiff.

ORDERED that the first order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Carol Barry, Leila Barry, and Sean Pilgrim, to strike those defendants' affirmative defense alleging a failure to comply with RPAPL 1304, and for an order of reference, and substituting therefor a provision denying those branches of the motion; as so modified, the first order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, and so much of the second order as granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Carol Barry, Leila Barry, and Sean Pilgrim, to strike those defendants' affirmative defense alleging a failure to comply with RPAPL 1304, and for an order of reference, and appointed a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiff, is vacated; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the second order as granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Carol Barry, Leila Barry, and Sean Pilgrim, to strike those defendants' affirmative defense alleging a failure to comply with RPAPL 1304, and for an order of reference, and appointed a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiff is dismissed as academic in light of our determination on the appeal from the first order; and it is further,

ORDERED that the second order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further, ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants Carol Barry, Leila Barry, and Sean Pilgrim.

In February 2013, the plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., commenced this mortgage foreclosure action against, among others, the defendants Carol Barry, Leila Barry, and Sean Pilgrim (hereinafter collectively the defendants). The defendants interposed an answer in which they asserted, among other things, the affirmative defenses that the plaintiff lacked standing and failed to comply with RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff thereafter moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants, to strike the defendants' affirmative defenses alleging lack of standing and a failure to comply with RPAPL 1304, and for an order of reference. The Supreme Court, inter alia, granted these branches of the plaintiff's motion in two orders, both dated April 23, 2018. The defendants appeal.

"A plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure...