HSBC Bank, USA v Hagerman
2015 NY Slip Op 05912 [130 AD3d 683]
July 8, 2015
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, September 2, 2015


[*1]
 HSBC Bank, USA, as Trustee for Wells Fargo AssetSecurities Corporation, Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2007-8,Respondent,
v
Robert Hagerman et al., Defendants, and Annmarie Hagerman,Also Known as Anmarie Hagerman, Appellant.

Hanna & Vlahakis, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Derrick Hanna of counsel), forappellant.

Hogan Lovells US LLP, New York, N.Y. (David Dunn, Chava Brandriss, andMichelle L. Moshe of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Annmarie Hagerman appeals, aslimited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County(Maltese, J.), dated November 12, 2013, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motionwhich was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law onthe complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Annmarie Hagerman (hereinafterthe appellant) by producing the mortgage, the note, and evidence of default (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co.v Islar, 122 AD3d 566, 567 [2014]). Although the appellant placed theplaintiff's standing to commence the action in issue, the evidence the plaintiff submittedestablished that it had standing as both the holder and the assignee of the subject noteand mortgage at the time the action was commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361[2015]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A.v Baptiste, 128 AD3d 773 [2015]; cf. Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Burke, 125 AD3d 765, 766[2015]). In opposition, the appellant's bald assertion of forgery was not sufficient to raisea triable issue of fact (see BancoPopular N. Am. v Victory Taxi Mgt., 1 NY3d 381, 384 [2004]; Beitner v Becker, 34 AD3d406, 408 [2006]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff'smotion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against theappellant. Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Roman and LaSalle, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.