- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
W&H Equities LLC v. Odums
Factual and Procedural Background
This case arises from an action to foreclose a mortgage initiated by the original plaintiff, Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., against defendant Marvin Odums. Greenpoint commenced the foreclosure action as the holder of the mortgage and underlying note. Subsequently, Greenpoint assigned the mortgage and note to W & H Equities, LLC, which moved to be substituted as plaintiff. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff and denied the defendant's motion to vacate the summary judgment order. Marvin Odums appeals from the judgment insofar as it was in favor of the plaintiff.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the original plaintiff, Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., had standing to commence the foreclosure action.
- Whether the Supreme Court properly granted substitution of W & H Equities, LLC as plaintiff following assignment.
- Whether the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the foreclosure complaint.
- Whether the appellant demonstrated entitlement to relief under CPLR 5015(a) to vacate the summary judgment order.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d 274, 926 N.Y.S.2d 532 | Establishing standing of a mortgage holder to commence foreclosure action. | Confirmed that Greenpoint had standing as holder of the mortgage and note at commencement. |
| U.S. Bank N.A. v. Pia, 73 A.D.3d 752, 901 N.Y.S.2d 104 | Supporting standing of mortgage holder to initiate foreclosure. | Reinforced standing of original plaintiff at the time of action commencement. |
| SO/Bluestar, LLC v. Canarsie Hotel Corp., 33 A.D.3d 986, 825 N.Y.S.2d 80 | Proper procedure for substitution of plaintiff after assignment of mortgage and note. | Validated the court’s granting of substitution of W & H as plaintiff. |
| Washington Mut. Bank v. Schenk, 112 A.D.3d 615, 975 N.Y.S.2d 902 | Requirements for plaintiff’s prima facie entitlement to summary judgment in foreclosure: mortgage, unpaid note, and evidence of default. | Found that W & H met its burden and appellant failed to raise triable issue. |
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Webster, 61 A.D.3d 856, 877 N.Y.S.2d 200 | Standards for summary judgment in mortgage foreclosure and opposing party’s burden to raise triable issue. | Applied to confirm plaintiff’s entitlement to summary judgment and dismissal of appellant’s opposition. |
| Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Coakley, 41 A.D.3d 674, 838 N.Y.S.2d 622 | Criteria for relief under CPLR 5015(a) to vacate judgment or order. | Determined appellant failed to meet criteria for vacatur of summary judgment order. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first addressed the appellant's contention regarding standing, concluding that the original plaintiff, Greenpoint, had standing because it held the mortgage and note at the time the action was commenced, citing established precedents. After Greenpoint assigned the mortgage and note to W & H, the court found proper the substitution of W & H as plaintiff in the action, consistent with procedural rules for assignment-based substitutions.
Regarding the summary judgment motion, the court applied the standard that a plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action must produce the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of default to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment. W & H met this burden, and the appellant failed to raise any triable issue of fact in opposition, warranting summary judgment.
Finally, the court considered the appellant's motion to vacate the summary judgment order under CPLR 5015(a). The appellant did not demonstrate grounds entitling him to relief, leading the court to properly deny the motion to vacate. The court rejected the appellant’s remaining contentions as without merit.
Holding and Implications
The judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The direct effect of this decision is to uphold the foreclosure judgment in favor of W & H Equities, LLC, denying the appellant's attempts to vacate the summary judgment and challenging standing. The opinion does not establish new precedent but confirms the application of established principles regarding standing, substitution of parties after assignment, summary judgment in foreclosure actions, and standards for relief under CPLR 5015(a).
Marvin Odums, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellant pro se. Solferino & Solferino, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Thomas P. Solferino of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Marvin Odums appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated August 22, 2011, as, upon an order of the same court dated November 18, 2010, granting the plaintiff's motion for, inter alia, summary judgment on the complaint, and upon an order of the same court dated August 2, 2011, among other things, denying his motion to vacate the order dated November 18, 2010, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the original plaintiff, Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (hereinafter Greenpoint), had standing to commence the action because it was the holder of the mortgage and the underlying note when it commenced the action ( see Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d 274, 279, 926 N.Y.S.2d 532; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Pia, 73 A.D.3d 752, 753, 901 N.Y.S.2d 104). Subsequently, Greenpoint assigned the mortgage and note to W & H Equities, LLC (hereinafter W & H), and the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of W & H's motion which was to substitute W & H as the plaintiff in the action ( cf. SO/Bluestar, LLC v. Canarsie Hotel Corp., 33 A.D.3d 986, 986–987, 825 N.Y.S.2d 80).
The Supreme Court also properly granted that branch of W & H's motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint. A plaintiff seeking summary judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action 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 ( see Washington Mut. Bank v. Schenk, 112 A.D.3d 615, 615–617, 975 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 08072, *1 [2d Dept.2013]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Webster, 61 A.D.3d 856, 856, 877 N.Y.S.2d 200). Here, W & H satisfied its burden, and the appellant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition ( see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Webster, 61 A.D.3d at 856, 877 N.Y.S.2d 200).
The appellant failed to demonstrate entitlement to relief under CPLR 5015(a) ( see Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Coakley, 41 A.D.3d 674, 674, 838 N.Y.S.2d 622) and, thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion to vacate the order awarding the plaintiff summary judgment on the complaint.
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, AUSTIN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
Alert