HSBC Bank United States v. Baptiste

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Attorney(S)

Knuckles, Komosinski & Elliot, LLP, Elmsford, N.Y. (David V. Mignardi of counsel), for appellant. Abraham Hoschander, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondents.

Judges

William F. Mastro

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from an action to foreclose a mortgage. The plaintiff, HSBC Bank USA, sought summary judgment on the complaint, but the Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the motion. The plaintiff appeals from that order, seeking reversal and granting of summary judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the plaintiff demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this mortgage foreclosure action by producing the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of the defendant's default in payment.
Whether the plaintiff established its standing to commence the action by showing it was the holder or assignee of the mortgage and the underlying note at the time the action was commenced.

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
Plaza Equities, LLC v. Lamberti, 118 A.D.3d 688, 986 N.Y.S.2d 843	Requirement to produce mortgage, unpaid note, and evidence of default to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment; standing must be proven if challenged.	Used to establish standards for plaintiff's prima facie showing and standing requirements in mortgage foreclosure actions.
Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v. Beckerman, 105 A.D.3d 895, 964 N.Y.S.2d 548	Requirement for evidentiary showing in foreclosure actions.	Supported the plaintiff's burden to produce mortgage, note, and default evidence for summary judgment.
MLCFC 2007–9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v. 36–02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 A.D.3d 745, 983 N.Y.S.2d 604	Standing must be established when challenged by defendant's answer.	Reinforced that plaintiff must prove standing as part of prima facie showing.
Bank of Am. N.A. v. Paulsen, 125 A.D.3d 909, 6 N.Y.S.3d 68	Standing is established by being holder or assignee of mortgage and note at commencement.	Used to confirm plaintiff's standing by showing possession of note and mortgage.
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Faruque, 120 A.D.3d 575, 991 N.Y.S.2d 630	Standing and evidentiary requirements in foreclosure actions.	Supported the plaintiff's proof of standing and entitlement to judgment.
Homecomings Fin. LLC v. Guldi, 108 A.D.3d 506, 969 N.Y.S.2d 470	Standing and foreclosure procedural requirements.	Affirmed the criteria for establishing standing in foreclosure cases.
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Stosel, 89 A.D.3d 887, 934 N.Y.S.2d 182	Standing and evidence needed for foreclosure summary judgment.	Confirmed the plaintiff’s burden to prove standing and default.
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Denaro, 98 A.D.3d 964, 950 N.Y.S.2d 581	Prima facie showing for foreclosure summary judgment.	Supported plaintiff’s entitlement to judgment based on submitted evidence.
Washington Mut. Bank F.A. v. O'Connor, 63 A.D.3d 832, 880 N.Y.S.2d 696	Evidence required to establish default and standing in foreclosure.	Used to corroborate plaintiff’s evidentiary submissions.
Tortorello v. Carlin, 260 A.D.2d 201, 688 N.Y.S.2d 64	Procedural rule regarding issues properly before the court.	Referenced to explain why certain contentions were not considered.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the plaintiff's submission of evidence, finding that the plaintiff demonstrated standing by showing it was the holder of the note and mortgage at the commencement of the action. The note was indorsed in blank and physically delivered to the plaintiff, and the mortgage was validly assigned prior to the lawsuit. The plaintiff also produced the mortgage, unpaid note, and evidence of the defendants' default, meeting the prima facie requirements for summary judgment in a foreclosure action. Because the defendants failed to raise any triable issues of fact in opposition, the court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The court declined to address other contentions as they were either not properly before it or unnecessary given the ruling.

Holding and Implications

The order of the Supreme Court denying summary judgment is reversed, and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint is granted.

The direct effect of this decision is that the plaintiff is entitled to proceed with foreclosure based on its established standing and proof of default. No new legal precedent was established, and the ruling primarily resolves the procedural posture of this specific foreclosure action.

Show full summary ...

HSBC Bank USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., appellant, v. Lorain Jean BAPTISTE, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

Knuckles, Komosinski & Elliot, LLP, Elmsford, N.Y. (David V. Mignardi of counsel), for appellant. Abraham Hoschander, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondents.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), entered January 29, 2014, which, inter alia, denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint is granted.

In order to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in an action to foreclose a mortgage, a plaintiff must produce the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of the defendant's default in payment ( see Plaza Equities, LLC v. Lamberti, 118 A.D.3d 688, 689, 986 N.Y.S.2d 843; Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v. Beckerman, 105 A.D.3d 895, 964 N.Y.S.2d 548). Where, as in this case, the plaintiff's standing has been placed in issue by reason of the defendant's answer, the plaintiff additionally must prove its standing as part of its prima facie showing ( see Plaza Equities, LLC v. Lamberti, 118 A.D.3d at 689, 986 N.Y.S.2d 843; MLCFC 2007–9 Mixed Astoria, LLC v. 36–02 35th Ave. Dev., LLC, 116 A.D.3d 745, 746, 983 N.Y.S.2d 604). A plaintiff establishes its standing by demonstrating that it is the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced ( see Bank of Am. N.A. v. Paulsen, 125 A.D.3d 909, 6 N.Y.S.3d 68; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Faruque, 120 A.D.3d 575, 577, 991 N.Y.S.2d 630; Homecomings Fin. LLC v. Guldi, 108 A.D.3d 506, 507, 969 N.Y.S.2d 470; Citimortgage, Inc. v. Stosel, 89 A.D.3d 887, 888, 934 N.Y.S.2d 182).

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff established its standing as the holder of the note and mortgage by submitting evidence demonstrating that the note, indorsed in blank by the lender, was physically delivered to it, and that the mortgage was validly assigned to it, prior to the commencement of the action. Moreover, the plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by producing the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of the defendants' default in payment ( see Plaza Equities, LLC v. Lamberti, 118 A.D.3d at 689, 986 N.Y.S.2d 843; Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v. Beckerman, 105 A.D.3d at 895, 964 N.Y.S.2d 548; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Denaro, 98 A.D.3d 964, 950 N.Y.S.2d 581; Washington Mut. Bank F.A. v. O'Connor, 63 A.D.3d 832, 880 N.Y.S.2d 696). Since the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

The parties' remaining contentions either are not properly before this Court ( see Tortorello v. Carlin, 260 A.D.2d 201, 205, 688 N.Y.S.2d 64) or need not be reached in light of our determination.