| U.S. Bank N.A. v Askew |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 02558 [138 AD3d 402] |
| April 5, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| U.S. Bank N.A., as Trustee on Behalf of SascoMortgage Loan Trust 2007-RNP1, Appellant, v Diana Askew, Respondent, etal., Defendants. |
Stim & Warmuth, P.C., Farmingville (Glenn P. Warmuth of counsel), forappellant.
Diana Askew, respondent pro se.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lizbeth Gonzalez, J.), entered November 6,2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff'smotion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, themotion granted, and the matter remanded for the appointment of a referee to compute theamount due.
A plaintiff may establish standing in a foreclosure action either by showingassignment of the mortgage note or physical delivery of the note prior to thecommencement of the foreclosure action (Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co. NA v Sachar, 95 AD3d695, 695-696 [1st Dept 2012]). Here, plaintiff attempted to show assignment of themortgage note through a series of allonges. However, the allonges do not all bear thesame loan number as the original mortgage note. This creates a fact issue as to whetherthe allonges are proper (seeHSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Thomas, 46 Misc 3d 429, 432-434 [Sup Ct, KingsCounty 2014]).
Nevertheless, plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated physical delivery of the note prior tocommencement of the action (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355,360-361[*2][2015]). Therefore, plaintiff was entitled tosummary judgment. The reference to compute is made under CPLR article 40 and notRPAPL 1321. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter and Gische, JJ.