| JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v Wenegieme |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 04541 [162 AD3d 876] |
| June 20, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association,Respondent, v Celeste M. Wenegieme, Appellant, et al.,Defendants. |
Ronald D. Weiss, P.C., Melville, NY, for appellant.
Blank Rome LLP, New York, NY (Diana M. Eng and Timothy W. Salter of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Celeste M. Wenegieme appeals from twoorders of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Thomas F. Whelan, J.), both dated March 27,2015. The orders, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motionwhich were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendantCeleste M. Wenegieme, to strike that defendant's answer, and to appoint a referee to compute theamount owed to the plaintiff.
Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
On December 19, 2007, the defendant Celeste M. Wenegieme (hereinafter the defendant)obtained a loan from the plaintiff in the principal sum of $357,675, which was secured by amortgage on real property located in Ridge, New York. On January 2, 2013, the plaintiffcommenced this mortgage foreclosure action against, among others, the defendant. Thedefendant served a pro se answer.
In December 2014, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaintinsofar as asserted against the defendant, to strike the defendant's answer, and to appoint a refereeto compute the amount owed to the plaintiff. The defendant opposed the motion. In two orders,both dated March 27, 2015, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted those branches of theplaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted againstthe defendant, struck the defendant's answer, and appointed a referee to compute the amountowed to the plaintiff. The defendant appeals, and we affirm both orders insofar as appealedfrom.
The plaintiff, who is the original lender, established its prima facie entitlement to judgmentas a matter of law through the production of the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of thedefendant's default (see Wells FargoBank, N.A. v Ali, 122 AD3d 726, 726 [2014]; Midfirst Bank v Agho, 121 AD3d 343, 347 [2014]). In opposition,the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
[*2] Contrary to the defendant's contention, in the absence of a court order directing otherwise,the plaintiff had the capacity to continue this action after assigning the mortgage and note (seeCPLR 1018; Woori Am. Bank vGlobal Universal Group Ltd., 134 AD3d 699, 700 [2015]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Hudson, 98AD3d 576, 577-578 [2012]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to grant those branches of theplaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted againstthe defendant, to strike the defendant's answer, and for the appointment of a referee to computethe amount owed to the plaintiff. Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.