BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON v. EDWARDS (2026)

Judgment of foreclosure and sale, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Naita A. Semaj, J.), entered on or about March 27, 2026, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff satisfied its prima facie burden of establishing its standing by demonstrating that a copy of the note endorsed in blank was annexed to the complaint (see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Knowles, 151 AD3d 596, 596–97 [1st Dept 2017] ).  Thus, it was “unnecessary to give factual details of the delivery to establish that possession was obtained prior to a particular date” (id. at 597).

Plaintiff further established that it complied with RPAPL 1304 by submitting the affidavit of Tricia Glodowski, a document verification specialist from NewRez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, plaintiff's attorney-in-fact.  In addition to adequately attesting that Shellpoint's own records comported with the business records exception, Glodowski attested that records from Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, which sent the relevant mailings, were incorporated into Shellpoint's own records and were regularly relied upon by Shellpoint in the ordinary course of its business.  These attestations sufficed to admit Shellpoint's records as business records (see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Demasco, 226 AD3d 855, 857 [2d Dept 2024] ).  Glodowski also attested that she based her statements on her review of the relevant business records, including the RPAPL 1304 mailings.  Glodowski attached to her affidavit a report generated by the United States Postal Service bearing a stamp indicating that first-class mailings were sent to the mortgaged premises and to defendant's last known address in Georgia, consistent with the affidavit and other business records (see Bank of Am., N.A. v. Sach, 230 AD3d 728, 730 [2d Dept 2024] [Postal Service tracking records constituted “evidence of actual mailing” but, unlike here, were not admissible for failure to lay proper foundation] ).  Collectively, plaintiff's evidence adequately established that plaintiff mailed the notices in compliance with RPAPL 1304.

As for defendant's argument that the court should have denied summary judgment because discovery was outstanding (see CPLR 3212[f] ), defendant does not explain why evidence of the chain of custody of the note was relevant, given that plaintiff had attached a copy of the note endorsed in blank to the complaint which, as discussed above, was sufficient evidence of plaintiff's standing.  As for defendant's request for discovery seemingly intended to rebut plaintiff's prima facie evidence of proper mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notices, defendant did not even affirmatively deny service of those notices, which would have been necessary to create an issue of fact (see CIT Bank N.A. v. Schiffman, 36 NY3d 550, 556–557 [2021] ).

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.