| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Hallock |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 02645 [138 AD3d 735] |
| April 6, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Respondent, v MarkHallock, Also Known as Mark J. Hallock, et al., Appellants, et al.,Defendants. |
Tarbet & Lester, PLLC, Amagansett, NY (Brian J. Lester of counsel), forappellants.
Kozeny McCubbin & Katz, LLP (Reed Smith LLP, New York, NY [Andrew B.Messite and Joseph B. Teig], of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Mark Hallock, also known asMark J. Hallock, and Diane Hallock appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of anorder of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), entered October 14, 2014, asgranted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on thecomplaint insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"[I]n moving for summary judgment in an action to foreclose a mortgage, a plaintiffestablishes its case as a matter of law through the production of the mortgage, the unpaidnote, and evidence of default" (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Webster, 61 AD3d 856, 856[2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the plaintiff demonstrated its primafacie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the complaint insofar as assertedagainst the defendants Mark Hallock, also known as Mark J. Hallock, and Diane Hallock(hereinafter together the defendants) by producing the note and the mortgage, andsubmitting evidence of default in payment (see Washington Mut. Bank v Valencia, 92 AD3d 774, 774[2012]; Wells Fargo Bank v DasKarla, 71 AD3d 1006 [2010]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Webster, 61 AD3d 856 [2009]).In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact relating to any bonafide defense to foreclosure (see Washington Mut. Bank v Valencia, 92 AD3d at774; Wells Fargo Bank v Das Karla, 71 AD3d at 1006; Wells Fargo Bank,N.A. v Webster, 61 AD3d at 856).
Contrary to the defendants' contention, they failed to demonstrate that additionaldiscovery may have led to relevant evidence or that facts essential to oppose the motionwere exclusively within the knowledge and control of the plaintiff (see CPLR3212 [f]; Savage v Quinn,91 AD3d 748, 750 [2012]).
The defendants' remaining contention is raised for the first time on appeal and is notproperly before this Court (seeSialeu v New York City Hous. Auth., 124 AD3d 623, 625 [2015]; Williams [*2]v Yang Qi Nail Salon, Inc., 113 AD3d 843, 845[2014]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff'smotion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against thedefendants. Chambers, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur. [Prior CaseHistory: 44 Misc 3d 1223(A), 2014 NY Slip Op 51274(U).]