Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., etc., respondent, v. Scott E. WEBSTER, et al., appellants.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (O'Rourke, J.), entered December 4, 2007, which, upon an amended order of the same court dated August 27, 2007, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, inter alia, upon confirming the referee's report, directed the foreclosure and sale of the subject property.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
“ ‘[I]n moving for summary judgment in an action to foreclose a mortgage, a plaintiff establishes its case as a matter of law through the production of the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of default’ ” (Republic Natl. Bank of N.Y. v. O'Kane, 308 A.D.2d 482, 482, 764 N.Y.S.2d 635, quoting Village Bank v. Wild Oaks Holding, 196 A.D.2d 812, 812, 601 N.Y.S.2d 940; see Aames Funding Corp. v. Houston, 44 A.D.3d 692, 693, 843 N.Y.S.2d 660). Here, the plaintiff bank sustained its initial burden of demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof of the existence of the note, mortgage, and consolidation agreement, and the defendants' default in payment (see Mahopac Natl. Bank v. Baisley, 244 A.D.2d 466, 467, 664 N.Y.S.2d 345; Home Sav. Bank v. Schorr Bros. Dev. Corp., 213 A.D.2d 512, 512-513, 624 N.Y.S.2d 53; Zitel Corp. v. Fonar Corp., 210 A.D.2d 221, 619 N.Y.S.2d 964). The plaintiff established, on its motion for summary judgment, that the defendants took out two mortgages on the subject property which were consolidated to form a single lien in the amount of $522,200, and that the defendants defaulted on their obligations under the note and mortgage. Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the defendants to demonstrate, by admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense (see State Bank of Albany v. Fioravanti, 51 N.Y.2d 638, 647, 435 N.Y.S.2d 947, 417 N.E.2d 60; Naugatuck Sav. Bank v. Gross, 214 A.D.2d 549, 625 N.Y.S.2d 572; Zitel Corp. v. Fonar Corp., 210 A.D.2d 221, 619 N.Y.S.2d 964). The defendants failed to raise such a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted to the plaintiff.
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 21, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)