| Sperry Assoc. Fed. Credit Union v Alexander |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02423 [116 AD3d 759] |
| April 9, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Sperry Associates Federal Credit Union,Appellant, v Annamma Alexander, Also Known as Ann Alexander, Respondent,et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Brody, O'Connor & O'Connor, New York, N.Y. (Magdalene P. Skountzos ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of theSupreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered December 28, 2012, which deniedits motion for summary judgment on the complaint and to dismiss the affirmativedefenses and counterclaims of the defendant Annamma Alexander, also known as AnnAlexander.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motionfor summary judgment on the complaint and to dismiss the affirmative defenses andcounterclaims of the defendant Annamma Alexander, also known as Ann Alexander, isgranted.
The plaintiff met its initial burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as amatter of law by producing the subject mortgage, the unpaid note, and an affidavit of itsemployee evidencing the default of the defendant Annamma Alexander, also known asAnn Alexander, in her payment obligations (see Wachovia Bank, N.A. v Carcano, 106 AD3d 724, 725[2013]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.v Webster, 61 AD3d 856 [2009]). In opposition, Alexander failed to raise atriable issue of fact relating to any bona fide defense to foreclosure (see Bank of Smithtown v 219 SaggMain, LLC, 107 AD3d 654, 655 [2013]). Alexander alleged that she wasdefrauded by a third party who, without her consent, submitted the application for thesubject home equity loan, which contained inflated figures for her income, and that thethird party pressured her into accepting the loan and passing its proceeds along to him,which he promised to repay. However, the evidence she submitted in support of thisallegation, consisting only of hearsay, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as towhether the plaintiff had any knowledge of this third party's alleged fraud (see Stock v Otis El. Co., 52AD3d 816, 816-817 [2008]; Miller Planning Corp. v Wells, 253 AD2d 859,860 [1998]; Chemical Bank v Bowers, 228 AD2d 407, 408 [1996]).
Alexander's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on its complaint and[*2]dismissing Alexander's affirmative defenses andcounterclaims. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Duffy, JJ., concur.