| US Bank, N.A. v Morrison |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 06075 [120 AD3d 1222] |
| September 10, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| US Bank, N.A., Respondent, v ClementMorrison, Also Known as Clement A. Morrison, et al., Appellants, et al.,Defendants. |
Clement A. Morrison, Springfield Gardens, N.Y., and Vyanne McBean, SpringfieldGardens, N.Y., appellants pro se (one brief filed).
Stein, Wiener & Roth, LLP, Carle Place, N.Y. (Jonathan M. Cohen of counsel),for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Clement Morrison, also knownas Clement A. Morrison, and Vyanne McBean appeal from an order of the SupremeCourt, Queens County (Butler, J.), dated September 27, 2011, which denied their motionpursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them forlack of standing, and denied their separate motion for leave to renew and reargue theirprior motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint insofar asasserted against the defendant Vyanne McBean for lack of personal jurisdiction, whichhad been denied in an order of the same court dated July 1, 2011.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated September 27, 2011, asdenied that branch of the appellants' motion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed,as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see Indymac Bank, F.S.B. v Moise, 107 AD3d 851, 852[2013]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated September 27, 2011 is affirmed insofar as reviewed; andit is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants' motion which wasfor leave to renew their prior motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss thecomplaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Vyanne McBean for lack of personaljurisdiction. Among other things, the appellants failed to demonstrate that the "newfacts" would have changed the prior determination (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; see Courtview Owners Corp. vCourtview Holding B.V., 113 AD3d 722, 724 [2014]).
The Supreme Court also properly denied the appellants' separate motion pursuant toCPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack ofstanding. The evidence the appellants submitted in support of this motion did not qualifyas "documentary" within the meaning of CPLR 3211 (a) (1) (see Fontanetta v John Doe 1,73 AD3d 78, 84 [2010]), and was [*2]insufficient todemonstrate that the issue of standing could be determined as a matter of law (seeCPLR 3211 [a] [3]; DeutscheBank Natl. Trust Co. v Rivas, 95 AD3d 1061, 1062 [2012]), or that theplaintiff's allegation that it had standing to commence this action was "not a fact at all"(Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]; see CPLR 3211[a] [7]). Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.