| Putnam County Sav. Bank v Mastrantone |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07954 [111 AD3d 914] |
| November 27, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Putnam County Savings Bank,Respondent, v Matthew Mastrantone, et al., Appellants, et al.,Defendants. |
—[*1] Daniels, Porco and Lusardi, LLP, Carmel, N.Y. (Robert C. Lusardi of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Matthew Mastrantone andJanine Mastrantone appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment offoreclosure and sale of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Nicolai, J.), entered April 3,2012, as, upon an order of the same court dated January 5, 2012, granting the plaintiff'smotion for summary judgment on the complaint, is in favor of the plaintiff and againstthem.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff met its initial burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as amatter of law by producing the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of the appellants'default (see Bank of Smithtownv 219 Sagg Main, LLC, 107 AD3d 654 [2013]; Solomon v Burden, 104 AD3d839 [2013]; Citibank, N.A.v Van Brunt Props., LLC, 95 AD3d 1158 [2012]). In opposition, the appellantsfailed to raise a triable issue of fact relating to any bona fide defense to foreclosure(see Bank of Smithtown v 219 Sagg Main, LLC, 107 AD3d at 655; Solomonv Burden, 104 AD3d at 839-840; Baron Assoc., LLC v Garcia Group Enters., Inc., 96 AD3d793 [2012]). With respect to their affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdictionon the basis of improper service of process, the appellants failed to move to dismiss thecomplaint on that ground within 60 days after serving their answer and, therefore, theywaived that defense (see JPMorgan Chase Bank v Munoz, 85 AD3d 1124, 1126-1127 [2011]; CPLR 3211[e]).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo,Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.