Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------X
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE, FOR THE
CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF MORGAN STANLEY
ABS CAPITAL I INC., TRUST 2005-WMC5, Index No.: 716943/2017
MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES,
SERIES 2005-WMC5,
Plaintiff,
-against-
RONFAYZI INC.; PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK; NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL BOARD; NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT
ADJUDICATION BUREAU; NEW YORK CITY
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE;
JOHN DOE (Those unknown tenants, occupants, persons
or corporations or their heirs, distributees, executors,
administrators, trustees, guardians, assignees, creditors or
successors claiming an interest in the mortgaged
premises.),
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------X
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AN ORDER OF REFERENCE,
AND OTHER ANCILLARY RELIEF
Attorneys for Plaintiff
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 471-6200
Facsimile (212) 935-1166
vmatthews@hinshawlaw.com
rpark@hinshawlaw.com
1034660\310857057.v1
1 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................................................1
A. Plaintiff Established It’s Prima Facie Case ...................................................1
B. Answering Defendant Lacks Standing ..........................................................2
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................2
I. LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................2
II. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS
MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS A MATTER OF LAW .....................4
A. Plaintiff Conclusively Established Its Standing ............................................4
B. The Supplemental Affidavit Further Establishes Plaintiff’s Standing ..........7
III. DEFENDANT’S FRAUD AND FORGERY CLAIMS ARE WITHOUT
MERIT ........................................................................................................................8
IV. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
GRANTED .................................................................................................................8
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................9
i
2 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page(s)
114 Woodbury Realty, LLC v 10 Bethpage Rd., LLC,
178 AD3d 757 [2d Dept 2019] ..................................................................................................9
Aames Funding Corp. v Houston,
44 AD3d 692 [2d Dept 2007] ....................................................................................................8
Arch Bay Holdings, LLC v Albanese,
146 AD3d 849 [2d Dept 2017] ..................................................................................................5
Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Baritz,
144 AD3d 618 [2d Dept 2016] ..................................................................................................5
Aurora Loans Servs., LLC v Mandel,
148 AD3d 965 [2d Dept 2017] ..................................................................................................3
Aurora Loans Servs., LLC v Taylor,
25 NY3d 355, 34 NE3d 363 [2015] ...........................................................................................2
Bank Leumi Trust Co. v Lightning Park, Inc.,
215 AD2d 246 [1st Dept 1995]..................................................................................................8
Bank of NY Mellon Trust Co. NA v Sachar,
95 AD3d 695 [1st Dept 2012]....................................................................................................2
Bank of NY Mellon v Alli,
156 AD3d 597 [2d Dept 2017] ..................................................................................................5
Bank of NY Mellon v Chamoula,
170 AD3d 788 [2d Dept 2019] ..................................................................................................4
Bronowski v Magnus Enters., Inc.,
61 AD2d 879 [4th Dept 1978] ...................................................................................................9
Cent Mtge. Co. v Davis,
149 AD3d 898 [2d Dept 2017] ..................................................................................................3
Charter One Bank v Houston,
300 AD2d 429 [2d Dept 2002] ..................................................................................................7
CitiMortgage, Inc. v McKenzie,
161 AD3d 1040 [2d Dept 2018] ................................................................................................4
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Brewton,
142 AD3d 683 [2d Dept 2016] ..................................................................................................5
ii
3 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Jimenez,
62 Misc 3d 811 [Sup Ct., Suffolk County, 2018] ......................................................................6
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Leigh,
137 AD3d 841 [2d Dept 2016] ..................................................................................................3
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Logan,
146 A.D3d 861, 861 [2d Dept 2017] .........................................................................................3
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Monica,
131 AD3d 737 [3d Dept 2015] ..................................................................................................6
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Naughton,
137 AD3d 1199 [2d Dept 2016] ................................................................................................6
Elkaim v Elkaim,
176 AD2d 116, 574 NYS2d 2 [1st Dept 1991]..........................................................................6
Emigrant Bank v Larizza,
129 AD3d 904 [2d Dept 2015] ..................................................................................................3
Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v Karastathis,
237 AD2d 558 [2d Dept 1997] ..................................................................................................7
First Nationwide Bank, FSB v Goodman,
272 AD2d 433 [2d Dept 2000] ..............................................................................................1, 7
Goldman Sachs Mtge. Co. v Mares,
135 AD3d 1121 [3d Dept 2018] ................................................................................................6
Gruen v Deyo,
218 AD2d 865 [3d Dept 1995] ..................................................................................................9
Horizons Invs. Corp. v Brecevich,
104 AD3d 475 [1st Dept 2013]..................................................................................................7
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Spitzer,
131 AD3d 1206 [2d Dept 2015] ................................................................................................3
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Caliguri,
36 NY3d 953 [2020] ..................................................................................................................3
JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v Weinberger,
142 AD3d 643 [2d Dept 2016] ..................................................................................................3
Kondaur Capital Corp. v McCary,
115 AD3d 649 [2d Dept 2014] ..................................................................................................2
iii
4 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022
Kuehne & Nagel, Inc. v Baiden,
36 NY2d 539 [1975] ..................................................................................................................9
Merrill Lynch Bus. Fin. Servs., Inc. v Trataros Const., Inc.,
30 AD3d 336 [1st Dept 2006]....................................................................................................6
Mishal v Fiduciary Holdings, LLC,
109 AD3d 885 [2d Dept 2013] ..................................................................................................7
Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Catizone,
127 AD3d 1151 [2d Dept 2015] ............................................................................................3, 4
NY Commercial Bank v J. Realty F Rockaway, Ltd.,
108 AD3d 756 [2d Dept 2013] ..................................................................................................9
Plymouth Rock Fuel Corp. v Leucadia, Inc.,
117 AD2d 727 [2d Dept 1986] ..................................................................................................5
Republic Natl. Bank of NY v O’Kane,
308 AD2d 482 [2d Dept 2003] ..................................................................................................8
Signor v Rochester,
73 AD2d 837 [4th Dept 1979] ...................................................................................................9
SportsChannel Assoc. v Sterling Mets, L.P.,
25 AD3d 314 [1st Dept 2006]....................................................................................................9
Starkman v City of Long Beach,
106 AD3d 1076 [2d Dept 2013] ................................................................................................9
U.S. Bank N.A. v Carey,
137 AD3d 894, 28 NYS3d 68 [2d Dept 2016] ..........................................................................5
U.S. Bank N.A. v Matrinez,
No. 2013-10808, 2015 NY Misc LEXIS 3134, 2015 NY Slip Op 31603[U]
[Sup Ct, Suffolk County, 2015] .................................................................................................6
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Arias,
121 AD3d 973 [2d Dept 2014] ..................................................................................................3
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Talley,
153 AD3d 583 [2d Dept 2017] ..................................................................................................5
Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Thomas,
150 AD3d 1312, 52 NYS3d 894 [2d Dept 2017] ......................................................................5
Statutes & Other Authorities
RPAPL 1321 ....................................................................................................................................9
iv
5 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022
CPLR 3212.......................................................................................................................................9
CPLR 4518.......................................................................................................................................6
CPLR 4518 [a] .............................................................................................................................4, 5
v
6 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022
Plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee, for the Certificateholders of Morgan Stanley
ABS Capital I Inc., Trust 2005-WMC5, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-WMC5
(“Plaintiff”), by its attorneys Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, respectfully submits this (i) Reply
Memorandum of Law; (ii) the accompanying Affidavit in Support of Daniel Maynes, sworn to on
May 11, 2022, with the exhibits annexed thereto (the “Supplemental SPS Aff.”); (iii) and the
accompanying Affirmation in Support of Terence D. Watson, sworn to on April 19, 2022, with the
exhibits referenced thereto (the “Watson Aff.”), in further support of its Motion for Summary
Judgment, an Order of Reference, and Other Ancillary Relief (the “Motion”).
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Answering defendant, Almando Izquierdo’s ( “Defendant”), opposition fails to raise a
triable issue of fact sufficient to deny summary judgment. First, Plaintiff established its standing
and entitlement to judgment on its Complaint. Second, Defendant, who is one of the tenants of the
real property known as 177-26 Ursina Road, Saint Albans, New York 11434 (the “Subject
Property”), is without privity of contract to the underlying loan documents and, thus, lacks standing
to bring defenses/claims. For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s Motion should be granted in
its entirety.
A. Plaintiff Established It’s Prima Facie Case
Here, Plaintiff established its prima facie right to foreclose through the Affidavit of Patrick
Riquelme of Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. (“SPS”), dated December 10, 2020, and the supporting
documentary evidence annexed thereto. 1 Pertinently, Defendant does not deny that borrower,
Walter McDowell ( “Borrower”): (i) obtained the Loan; (ii) defaulted on the Loan; and (iii) owed
the debt to Plaintiff.
1
The Affidavit of Patrick Riquelme filed in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion shall be referenced as “SPS Aff.” (New
York State Courts Electronic Filing (“NYSCEF”) Doc. No. 40).
1
7 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022
B. Answering Defendant Lacks Standing
Defendant’s challenge to the validity of Plaintiff’s Mortgage on the basis that the Power of
Attorney (“POA”) used to execute the Mortgage on behalf of Defendant’s deceased mother, co-
mortgagor Merline McDowell, was allegedly induced by fraud and/or was forged is meritless. As
a threshold issue, Defendant is without privity of contract to the underlying loan documents and
cannot bring defenses/claims under the contract. Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment in this
foreclosure action against the non-appearing deed owner and the appearing tenant Defendant
because it has clearly established its prima facie case. Specifically, Plaintiff has established the
existence of the subject note and mortgage, the Borrower’s default, and failure to cure the default.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion should be granted in its entirety.
ARGUMENT
I. LEGAL STANDARD
As established by the Court of Appeals, a plaintiff in a foreclosure action can also
demonstrate its standing by either physical delivery of the note or by a written assignment of the
note and mortgage prior to commencement of the action. (See Aurora Loans Servs., LLC v Taylor,
25 NY3d 355, 34 NE3d 363, 12 NYS.3d 612 [2015]). The Court of Appeals in Taylor further
found that delivery alone is sufficient to establish standing as the mortgage is transferred as
incident to the Note. (Id.) An assignment of the note by physical delivery to the foreclosing
plaintiff, prior to commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to confer standing. (See
Kondaur Capital Corp. v McCary, 115 AD3d 649, 649 [2d Dept 2014] (“The plaintiff may
demonstrate that it is the holder…of the underlying note by showing…physical delivery of the
note.”); see also Bank of NY Mellon Trust Co. NA v Sachar, 95 AD3d 695 [1st Dept 2012]. As
such, a plaintiff may demonstrate standing by submitting an affidavit from plaintiff’s
representative attesting to possession of the underlying note prior to commencement of the action.
2
8 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022
(See Cent Mtge. Co. v Davis, 149 AD3d 898, 899 [2d Dept 2017]; Aurora Loans Servs., LLC v
Mandel, 148 AD3d 965 [2d Dept 2017]; see also Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Arias, 121 AD3d 973,
974 [2d Dept 2014] (affirming summary judgment where affidavit of plaintiff’s loan servicer stated
that “the subject note was delivered to the plaintiff on March 25, 2004, which was prior to the
commencement of [the] action”); see also HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Spitzer, 131 AD3d 1206, 1207
[2d Dept 2015] (affirming summary judgment where affidavit of plaintiff’s loan servicer
“established that the plaintiff had physical possession of the note at the time the action was
commenced”)). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the
note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation,
and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident.” (JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v
Weinberger, 142 AD3d 643, 644-45 [2d Dept 2016]).
Plaintiff may also establish, prima facie, that it had standing by demonstrating that it had
physical possession of the note prior to the commencement of the action, as evidenced by its
attachment of the note to the summons and complaint at the time the action was commenced. (See
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Logan, 146 A.D3d 861, 861 [2d Dept 2017]; see also Weinberger,
142 AD3d at 645; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Leigh, 137 AD3d 841, 841 [2d Dept 2016];
Emigrant Bank v Larizza, 129 AD3d 904, 905 [2d Dept 2015]; Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Catizone,
127 AD3d 1151, 1152 [2d Dept 2015].) “There is no “checklist” of required proof to establish
standing.” (JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Caliguri, 36 NY3d 953, 954 [2020] (plaintiff satisfied
its burden through evidence that it possessed the note when it commenced the action, including a
copy of the original note endorsed in blank, and other supporting material, including an affidavit
of possession based on an employee’s review of plaintiff’s business records)).
3
9 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022
Defendant argues, in conclusory fashion, that Plaintiff did not establish Plaintiff’s
possession of the Note and, thus, lacks standing. (See the Affidavit of Opposition of Almando
Izquierdo filed on March 18, 2022 (the “Izquierdo Aff.”) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 64), ¶¶ 19-20).
Defendant further argues that the SPS Aff. lacks the foundation to admit the affiant’s sworn
statements. (See Izquierdo Aff., ¶¶ 16-17). However, Defendant’s arguments underscore his
fundamental misunderstanding of the proofs required from a foreclosing lender. As detailed below,
Plaintiff has established that the supporting affidavits, and the documents attached thereto, are
admissible under the business record exception codified in CPLR 4518 (a). As such, Defendant’s
arguments are devoid of merit and should be rejected in their entirety.
II. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MORTGAGE
FORECLOSURE ACTION AS A MATTER OF LAW
A. Plaintiff Conclusively Established Its Standing
As a preliminary matter, the attachment of a note to the complaint in a foreclosure action
is sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff was the holder of the note when the
action was commenced. (See Bank of NY Mellon v Chamoula, 170 AD3d 788, 791 [2d Dept 2019];
see also CitiMortgage, Inc. v McKenzie, 161 AD3d 1040, 1041 [2d Dept 2018]; Nationstart Mtge.,
LLC v Catizone, 127 AD3d 1151, 1152 [2d Dept 2015].) Here, the subject note was attached to
the complaint, thereby firmly establishing Plaintiff’s standing to proceed in this foreclosure action.
(See Complaint (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1)).
Moreover, as detailed in the sworn affidavit of Patrick Riquelme, the affiant testified that
he is a Document Control Officer employed by SPS, the loan servicer to the subject loan and
attorney-in-fact for Plaintiff. 2 (See SPS Aff., ¶ 1). Mr. Riquelme further testified that he has
2
The Affidavit of Patrick Riquelme filed in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion shall be referenced as “SPS Aff.” (New
York State Courts Electronic Filing (“NYSCEF”) Doc. No. 48).
4
10 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022
personal knowledge of SPS’s record-keeping practices and that he has also acquired personal
knowledge of the facts and circumstances set forth in his affidavit by reviewing the business
records of Plaintiff, SPS and their agents, which are created and maintained in the regular course
of business and routinely relied on by SPS in the ordinary course of its business. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-7; see
also Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Thomas, 150 AD3d 1312, 1313, 52 NYS3d 894, 895 [2d Dept 2017]
(“The appellants’ contention that Greenwood’s affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay because
she did not have personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures is
without merit”).) Records relied upon by plaintiff in a foreclosure action are admissible pursuant
to the business records exception to the hearsay rule if the affiant attests to being personally
familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of the plaintiff. (See CPLR 4518 [a]; see
also Bank of NY Mellon v Alli, 156 AD3d 597, 599 [2d Dept 2017]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v
Talley, 153 AD3d 583, 583 [2d Dept 2017]; Arch Bay Holdings, LLC v Albanese, 146 AD3d 849,
853 [2d Dept 2017]; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Baritz, 144 AD3d 618, 620 [2d Dept 2016];
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Brewton, 142 AD3d 683, 685 [2d Dept 2016]).
According to Mr. Riquelme’s sworn testimony, the records he relied on are made at or near
the time of the transactions by a person with personal knowledge and include, among other things,
the business records of prior holders and servicers, including Plaintiff, which were incorporated
into SPS’s own business records. (See SPS Aff., ¶ 5; see also U.S. Bank N.A. v Carey, 137 AD3d
894, 28 NYS3d 68 [2d Dept 2016] (finding that affiant’s testimony and reliance on business
records of prior loan servicer was sufficient to support plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment);
see also Plymouth Rock Fuel Corp. v Leucadia, Inc., 117 AD2d 727, 498 NYS.2d 453 [2d Dept
1986] (finding that a proper foundation may also be provided where an entity shows that it
routinely relies upon the business records of another entity in the performance of its own business);
5
11 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022
Merrill Lynch Bus. Fin. Servs., Inc. v Trataros Const., Inc., 30 AD3d 336, 337, 819 NYS.2d 223,
223-24 [1st Dept 2006] (holding that “a proper business records foundation for these statements
was laid by plaintiff’s witness, who testified, inter alia, that plaintiff relies on these statements in
the regular course of its business even though they were prepared not by plaintiff but for plaintiff
by a sister company”); Elkaim v Elkaim, 176 AD2d 116, 574 NYS2d 2 [1st Dept 1991], quoting 5
Weinstein, Korn and Miller, New York Civil Practice, § 4518.18 for the proposition that judicial
notice can provide a foundation for admitting records of a particular business; Goldman Sachs
Mtge. Co. v Mares, 135 AD3d 1121 [3d Dept 2018] (finding that itwas not necessary for
plaintiff’s loan servicer to have personal knowledge of the creation of the account records, “…he
could testify from his review of [the] business records”); Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Monica,
131 AD3d 737, 15 NYS.3d 863 [3d Dept 2015]).
Therefore, Mr. Riquelme’s affidavit constitutes competent and admissible evidence of
Plaintiff’s standing. (See CPLR 4518; see also Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Naughton, 137
AD3d 1199, 1200 [2d Dept 2016] (affidavit from loan servicer admissible); Deutsche Bank Natl.
Trust Co. v Jimenez, 62 Misc 3d 811, 819 [Sup Ct., Suffolk County, 2018] (affidavit from Ocwen
employee admissible); U.S. Bank N.A. v Matrinez, No. 2013-10808, 2015 NY Misc LEXIS 3134,
2015 NY Slip Op 31603[U] *4 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County, 2015] (affidavit from Ocwen employee
admissible)). Based on SPS’s loan records, SPS, as custodian on behalf of Plaintiff, was in physical
possession of the Note since March 9, 2015. (See SPS Aff., ¶ 14). As such, Plaintiff has been the
holder of the original Note and Mortgage prior to commencement of the action, and Defendant’s
default in remitting a payment that became due on September 1, 2012, and thereafter. (See SPS
Aff., ¶¶ 14-15).
6
12 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022
Thus, all that is required to establish standing in a foreclosure action is that the foreclosing
plaintiff be in possession of the original note prior to commencement. As the foregoing
demonstrates, Plaintiff was in possession of the Note and Mortgage prior to the commencement of
the action and established it had standing to commence the foreclosure action. As such, Plaintiff
has established its right to default judgment and for an order of reference. (See Mishal v Fiduciary
Holdings, LLC, 109 AD3d 885 [2d Dept 2013]; Charter One Bank v Houston, 300 AD2d 429 [2d
Dept 2002]; First Nationwide Bank, FSB v Goodman, 272 AD2d 433 [2d Dept 2000]).
B. The Supplemental Affidavit Further Establishes Plaintiff’s Standing
Here, Plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting
the unpaid Note, endorsed in blank, the Mortgage, and evidence of the deceased Borrower’s failure
to make the required loan payments. This showing shifts the burden to Defendant to substantiate
his affirmative defenses with evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of
those defenses. (See Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v Karastathis, 237 AD2d 558 [2d Dept 1997]).
As previously established, Defendant, a tenant with no deed ownership interest or connection to
the Note and Mortgage, is unable to present evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to Plaintiff’s
prima facie case requires summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. (See First Nationwide Bank, FSB
v. Goodman, 272 AD2d 433 [2d Dept 2000]; Horizons Invs. Corp. v Brecevich, 104 AD3d 475
[1st Dept 2013]).
Even assuming arguendo that the SPS Aff. is not deemed to establish Plaintiff’s standing
(although it does), the Supplemental SPS Aff. clearly establishes that Plaintiff was in possession
of the subject note prior to the commencement of the present action. (See Supplemental SPS Aff.,
generally.) In addition to the extensive testimony in the SPS Aff., Daniel Maynes also goes into
painstaking detail with regard to the review of SPS’s business records. (See Supplemental SPS
Aff., ¶¶ 2-6).
7
13 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022
Additionally, the Supplemental SPS Aff. also provides the business records relied upon to
confirm that SPS was in possession of the subject note prior to the commencement of the instant
action. (See Supplemental SPS Aff., ¶¶ 13-14, Exs. E, F). SPS’s Contact History business record
is maintained and relied upon for evidencing and confirming the possession of the subject note.
(See Supplemental SPS Aff., ¶ 13, Ex. E). This information provides the independent proof of
possession that Defendant alleges Plaintiff does not provide. (See Izquierdo Aff., ¶ 27). As such,
the Supplemental SPS Aff. further establishes Plaintiff’s standing.
III. DEFENDANT’S FRAUD AND FORGERY CLAIMS ARE WITHOUT MERIT
Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the accompanying Watson Aff., dated April 19,
2022, to address the fraud and forgery issues asserted by Defendant. (See Watson Aff., generally.)
IV. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED
Defendant’s failure to submit opposition addressing Plaintiff’s prima facie case for
foreclosure requires summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. “It is settled that in 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 NY v O’Kane, 308 AD2d 482, 482 [2d Dept 2003]; Bank Leumi Trust Co. v Lightning
Park, Inc., 215 AD2d 246 [1st Dept 1995]). Once a foreclosing plaintiff establishes its prima facie
case, the burden shifts to the answering defendant to demonstrate, through the submission of
admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense to the
foreclosure. (See Aames Funding Corp. v Houston, 44 AD3d 692 [2d Dept 2007]).
Here, Plaintiff established its prima face entitlement to summary judgment by submitting
the subject promissory note (NYSCEF Doc. No. 43), the mortgage (NYSCEF Doc. No. 44), and
proof of Defendant’s default (Supplemental SPS Aff., Ex. F). There is no affidavit from Defendant
8
14 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022
or anything else in the opposition disputing the validity and enforceability of the note and
mortgage, or Borrower’s default thereunder.
The absence of evidence to rebut Plaintiff’s prima facie case should be deemed a
concession that no questions of fact exists and summary judgment should be granted. (See e.g. 114
Woodbury Realty, LLC v 10 Bethpage Rd., LLC, 178 AD3d 757, 761 [2d Dept 2019] (“Where a
party fails to oppose some or all matters advanced on a motion for summary judgment, the facts
as alleged in the movant’s papers may be deemed admitted as there is, in effect, a concession that
no question of fact exists.”); Kuehne & Nagel, Inc. v Baiden, 36 NY2d 539, 544 [1975] (“Facts
appearing in the movant’s papers which the opposing party does not controvert, may be deemed
to be admitted…and there is, in effect, a concession that no question of fact exists.”); Signor v
Rochester, 73 AD2d 837, 837 [4th Dept 1979] (“Since the facts set forth by the defendant [movant]
are not controverted, those facts may be deemed to be admitted.”); Bronowski v Magnus Enters.,
Inc., 61 AD2d 879, 879 [4th Dept 1978] (“A general denial is insufficient to raise a factual issue
on a summary judgment motion.”); Gruen v Deyo, 218 AD2d 865 [3d Dept 1995]; SportsChannel
Assoc. v Sterling Mets, L.P., 25 AD3d 314 [1st Dept 2006]). Moreover, Defendant’s failure to raise
his remaining affirmative defenses in opposition should be deemed a waiver and abandonment of
those defenses. (See e.g. NY Commercial Bank v J. Realty F Rockaway, Ltd., 108 AD3d 756 [2d
Dept 2013]; Starkman v City of Long Beach, 106 AD3d 1076 [2d Dept 2013]). Accordingly,
summary judgment should be granted on Plaintiff’s cause of action to foreclose the mortgage.
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue an
Order: (a) pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on its
Complaint against Defendant’s Answer; (b) fixing the defaults against the remaining non-
answering defendants; (c) appointing a referee pursuant to RPAPL 1321 to compute the amounts
9
15 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022
due and owing to Plaintiff under the subject note and mortgage; (d) amending the caption in this
action; and (e) for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: New York, NY
June 2, 2022
Respectfully Submitted,
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee, for the
Certificateholders of Morgan Stanley ABS
Capital I Inc., Trust 20005-WMC5,
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2005-WMC5,
__/s/ Ronald H. Park________
Victor L. Matthews, Esq.
Ronald H. Park, Esq.
800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
New York, New York 10022
Phone: (212) 471-6200
E-mail: rpark@hinshawlaw.com
10
16 of 17
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022
WORD COUNT CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.8-b(c) that the total number of words in the
Reply Memorandum Of Law In Further Support Of Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment,
An Order Of Reference, And Other Ancillary Relief, exclusive of the caption, signature and this
Certification is 3,031, and is in compliance with the word count limit.
Dated: New York, NY
June 2, 2022
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee, for the
Certificateholders of Morgan Stanley ABS
Capital I Inc., Trust 20005-WMC5,
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS -------------------------------------------------------------------------X WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE, FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I INC., TRUST 2005-WMC5, Index No.: 716943/2017 MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-WMC5, Plaintiff, -against- RONFAYZI INC.; PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD; NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT ADJUDICATION BUREAU; NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE; JOHN DOE (Those unknown tenants, occupants, persons or corporations or their heirs, distributees, executors, administrators, trustees, guardians, assignees, creditors or successors claiming an interest in the mortgaged premises.), Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------X REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AN ORDER OF REFERENCE, AND OTHER ANCILLARY RELIEF Attorneys for Plaintiff HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 471-6200 Facsimile (212) 935-1166 vmatthews@hinshawlaw.com rpark@hinshawlaw.com 1034660\310857057.v1 1 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................................................1 A. Plaintiff Established It’s Prima Facie Case ...................................................1 B. Answering Defendant Lacks Standing ..........................................................2 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................2 I. LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................2 II. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS A MATTER OF LAW .....................4 A. Plaintiff Conclusively Established Its Standing ............................................4 B. The Supplemental Affidavit Further Establishes Plaintiff’s Standing ..........7 III. DEFENDANT’S FRAUD AND FORGERY CLAIMS ARE WITHOUT MERIT ........................................................................................................................8 IV. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED .................................................................................................................8 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................9 i 2 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) 114 Woodbury Realty, LLC v 10 Bethpage Rd., LLC, 178 AD3d 757 [2d Dept 2019] ..................................................................................................9 Aames Funding Corp. v Houston, 44 AD3d 692 [2d Dept 2007] ....................................................................................................8 Arch Bay Holdings, LLC v Albanese, 146 AD3d 849 [2d Dept 2017] ..................................................................................................5 Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Baritz, 144 AD3d 618 [2d Dept 2016] ..................................................................................................5 Aurora Loans Servs., LLC v Mandel, 148 AD3d 965 [2d Dept 2017] ..................................................................................................3 Aurora Loans Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 34 NE3d 363 [2015] ...........................................................................................2 Bank Leumi Trust Co. v Lightning Park, Inc., 215 AD2d 246 [1st Dept 1995]..................................................................................................8 Bank of NY Mellon Trust Co. NA v Sachar, 95 AD3d 695 [1st Dept 2012]....................................................................................................2 Bank of NY Mellon v Alli, 156 AD3d 597 [2d Dept 2017] ..................................................................................................5 Bank of NY Mellon v Chamoula, 170 AD3d 788 [2d Dept 2019] ..................................................................................................4 Bronowski v Magnus Enters., Inc., 61 AD2d 879 [4th Dept 1978] ...................................................................................................9 Cent Mtge. Co. v Davis, 149 AD3d 898 [2d Dept 2017] ..................................................................................................3 Charter One Bank v Houston, 300 AD2d 429 [2d Dept 2002] ..................................................................................................7 CitiMortgage, Inc. v McKenzie, 161 AD3d 1040 [2d Dept 2018] ................................................................................................4 Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Brewton, 142 AD3d 683 [2d Dept 2016] ..................................................................................................5 ii 3 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022 Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Jimenez, 62 Misc 3d 811 [Sup Ct., Suffolk County, 2018] ......................................................................6 Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Leigh, 137 AD3d 841 [2d Dept 2016] ..................................................................................................3 Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Logan, 146 A.D3d 861, 861 [2d Dept 2017] .........................................................................................3 Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Monica, 131 AD3d 737 [3d Dept 2015] ..................................................................................................6 Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Naughton, 137 AD3d 1199 [2d Dept 2016] ................................................................................................6 Elkaim v Elkaim, 176 AD2d 116, 574 NYS2d 2 [1st Dept 1991]..........................................................................6 Emigrant Bank v Larizza, 129 AD3d 904 [2d Dept 2015] ..................................................................................................3 Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v Karastathis, 237 AD2d 558 [2d Dept 1997] ..................................................................................................7 First Nationwide Bank, FSB v Goodman, 272 AD2d 433 [2d Dept 2000] ..............................................................................................1, 7 Goldman Sachs Mtge. Co. v Mares, 135 AD3d 1121 [3d Dept 2018] ................................................................................................6 Gruen v Deyo, 218 AD2d 865 [3d Dept 1995] ..................................................................................................9 Horizons Invs. Corp. v Brecevich, 104 AD3d 475 [1st Dept 2013]..................................................................................................7 HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Spitzer, 131 AD3d 1206 [2d Dept 2015] ................................................................................................3 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Caliguri, 36 NY3d 953 [2020] ..................................................................................................................3 JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v Weinberger, 142 AD3d 643 [2d Dept 2016] ..................................................................................................3 Kondaur Capital Corp. v McCary, 115 AD3d 649 [2d Dept 2014] ..................................................................................................2 iii 4 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022 Kuehne & Nagel, Inc. v Baiden, 36 NY2d 539 [1975] ..................................................................................................................9 Merrill Lynch Bus. Fin. Servs., Inc. v Trataros Const., Inc., 30 AD3d 336 [1st Dept 2006]....................................................................................................6 Mishal v Fiduciary Holdings, LLC, 109 AD3d 885 [2d Dept 2013] ..................................................................................................7 Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Catizone, 127 AD3d 1151 [2d Dept 2015] ............................................................................................3, 4 NY Commercial Bank v J. Realty F Rockaway, Ltd., 108 AD3d 756 [2d Dept 2013] ..................................................................................................9 Plymouth Rock Fuel Corp. v Leucadia, Inc., 117 AD2d 727 [2d Dept 1986] ..................................................................................................5 Republic Natl. Bank of NY v O’Kane, 308 AD2d 482 [2d Dept 2003] ..................................................................................................8 Signor v Rochester, 73 AD2d 837 [4th Dept 1979] ...................................................................................................9 SportsChannel Assoc. v Sterling Mets, L.P., 25 AD3d 314 [1st Dept 2006]....................................................................................................9 Starkman v City of Long Beach, 106 AD3d 1076 [2d Dept 2013] ................................................................................................9 U.S. Bank N.A. v Carey, 137 AD3d 894, 28 NYS3d 68 [2d Dept 2016] ..........................................................................5 U.S. Bank N.A. v Matrinez, No. 2013-10808, 2015 NY Misc LEXIS 3134, 2015 NY Slip Op 31603[U] [Sup Ct, Suffolk County, 2015] .................................................................................................6 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Arias, 121 AD3d 973 [2d Dept 2014] ..................................................................................................3 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Talley, 153 AD3d 583 [2d Dept 2017] ..................................................................................................5 Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Thomas, 150 AD3d 1312, 52 NYS3d 894 [2d Dept 2017] ......................................................................5 Statutes & Other Authorities RPAPL 1321 ....................................................................................................................................9 iv 5 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022 CPLR 3212.......................................................................................................................................9 CPLR 4518.......................................................................................................................................6 CPLR 4518 [a] .............................................................................................................................4, 5 v 6 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022 Plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee, for the Certificateholders of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., Trust 2005-WMC5, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-WMC5 (“Plaintiff”), by its attorneys Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, respectfully submits this (i) Reply Memorandum of Law; (ii) the accompanying Affidavit in Support of Daniel Maynes, sworn to on May 11, 2022, with the exhibits annexed thereto (the “Supplemental SPS Aff.”); (iii) and the accompanying Affirmation in Support of Terence D. Watson, sworn to on April 19, 2022, with the exhibits referenced thereto (the “Watson Aff.”), in further support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, an Order of Reference, and Other Ancillary Relief (the “Motion”). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Answering defendant, Almando Izquierdo’s ( “Defendant”), opposition fails to raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to deny summary judgment. First, Plaintiff established its standing and entitlement to judgment on its Complaint. Second, Defendant, who is one of the tenants of the real property known as 177-26 Ursina Road, Saint Albans, New York 11434 (the “Subject Property”), is without privity of contract to the underlying loan documents and, thus, lacks standing to bring defenses/claims. For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s Motion should be granted in its entirety. A. Plaintiff Established It’s Prima Facie Case Here, Plaintiff established its prima facie right to foreclose through the Affidavit of Patrick Riquelme of Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. (“SPS”), dated December 10, 2020, and the supporting documentary evidence annexed thereto. 1 Pertinently, Defendant does not deny that borrower, Walter McDowell ( “Borrower”): (i) obtained the Loan; (ii) defaulted on the Loan; and (iii) owed the debt to Plaintiff. 1 The Affidavit of Patrick Riquelme filed in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion shall be referenced as “SPS Aff.” (New York State Courts Electronic Filing (“NYSCEF”) Doc. No. 40). 1 7 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022 B. Answering Defendant Lacks Standing Defendant’s challenge to the validity of Plaintiff’s Mortgage on the basis that the Power of Attorney (“POA”) used to execute the Mortgage on behalf of Defendant’s deceased mother, co- mortgagor Merline McDowell, was allegedly induced by fraud and/or was forged is meritless. As a threshold issue, Defendant is without privity of contract to the underlying loan documents and cannot bring defenses/claims under the contract. Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment in this foreclosure action against the non-appearing deed owner and the appearing tenant Defendant because it has clearly established its prima facie case. Specifically, Plaintiff has established the existence of the subject note and mortgage, the Borrower’s default, and failure to cure the default. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion should be granted in its entirety. ARGUMENT I. LEGAL STANDARD As established by the Court of Appeals, a plaintiff in a foreclosure action can also demonstrate its standing by either physical delivery of the note or by a written assignment of the note and mortgage prior to commencement of the action. (See Aurora Loans Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 34 NE3d 363, 12 NYS.3d 612 [2015]). The Court of Appeals in Taylor further found that delivery alone is sufficient to establish standing as the mortgage is transferred as incident to the Note. (Id.) An assignment of the note by physical delivery to the foreclosing plaintiff, prior to commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to confer standing. (See Kondaur Capital Corp. v McCary, 115 AD3d 649, 649 [2d Dept 2014] (“The plaintiff may demonstrate that it is the holder…of the underlying note by showing…physical delivery of the note.”); see also Bank of NY Mellon Trust Co. NA v Sachar, 95 AD3d 695 [1st Dept 2012]. As such, a plaintiff may demonstrate standing by submitting an affidavit from plaintiff’s representative attesting to possession of the underlying note prior to commencement of the action. 2 8 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022 (See Cent Mtge. Co. v Davis, 149 AD3d 898, 899 [2d Dept 2017]; Aurora Loans Servs., LLC v Mandel, 148 AD3d 965 [2d Dept 2017]; see also Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Arias, 121 AD3d 973, 974 [2d Dept 2014] (affirming summary judgment where affidavit of plaintiff’s loan servicer stated that “the subject note was delivered to the plaintiff on March 25, 2004, which was prior to the commencement of [the] action”); see also HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Spitzer, 131 AD3d 1206, 1207 [2d Dept 2015] (affirming summary judgment where affidavit of plaintiff’s loan servicer “established that the plaintiff had physical possession of the note at the time the action was commenced”)). “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident.” (JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v Weinberger, 142 AD3d 643, 644-45 [2d Dept 2016]). Plaintiff may also establish, prima facie, that it had standing by demonstrating that it had physical possession of the note prior to the commencement of the action, as evidenced by its attachment of the note to the summons and complaint at the time the action was commenced. (See Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Logan, 146 A.D3d 861, 861 [2d Dept 2017]; see also Weinberger, 142 AD3d at 645; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Leigh, 137 AD3d 841, 841 [2d Dept 2016]; Emigrant Bank v Larizza, 129 AD3d 904, 905 [2d Dept 2015]; Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Catizone, 127 AD3d 1151, 1152 [2d Dept 2015].) “There is no “checklist” of required proof to establish standing.” (JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Caliguri, 36 NY3d 953, 954 [2020] (plaintiff satisfied its burden through evidence that it possessed the note when it commenced the action, including a copy of the original note endorsed in blank, and other supporting material, including an affidavit of possession based on an employee’s review of plaintiff’s business records)). 3 9 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022 Defendant argues, in conclusory fashion, that Plaintiff did not establish Plaintiff’s possession of the Note and, thus, lacks standing. (See the Affidavit of Opposition of Almando Izquierdo filed on March 18, 2022 (the “Izquierdo Aff.”) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 64), ¶¶ 19-20). Defendant further argues that the SPS Aff. lacks the foundation to admit the affiant’s sworn statements. (See Izquierdo Aff., ¶¶ 16-17). However, Defendant’s arguments underscore his fundamental misunderstanding of the proofs required from a foreclosing lender. As detailed below, Plaintiff has established that the supporting affidavits, and the documents attached thereto, are admissible under the business record exception codified in CPLR 4518 (a). As such, Defendant’s arguments are devoid of merit and should be rejected in their entirety. II. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS A MATTER OF LAW A. Plaintiff Conclusively Established Its Standing As a preliminary matter, the attachment of a note to the complaint in a foreclosure action is sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff was the holder of the note when the action was commenced. (See Bank of NY Mellon v Chamoula, 170 AD3d 788, 791 [2d Dept 2019]; see also CitiMortgage, Inc. v McKenzie, 161 AD3d 1040, 1041 [2d Dept 2018]; Nationstart Mtge., LLC v Catizone, 127 AD3d 1151, 1152 [2d Dept 2015].) Here, the subject note was attached to the complaint, thereby firmly establishing Plaintiff’s standing to proceed in this foreclosure action. (See Complaint (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1)). Moreover, as detailed in the sworn affidavit of Patrick Riquelme, the affiant testified that he is a Document Control Officer employed by SPS, the loan servicer to the subject loan and attorney-in-fact for Plaintiff. 2 (See SPS Aff., ¶ 1). Mr. Riquelme further testified that he has 2 The Affidavit of Patrick Riquelme filed in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion shall be referenced as “SPS Aff.” (New York State Courts Electronic Filing (“NYSCEF”) Doc. No. 48). 4 10 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022 personal knowledge of SPS’s record-keeping practices and that he has also acquired personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances set forth in his affidavit by reviewing the business records of Plaintiff, SPS and their agents, which are created and maintained in the regular course of business and routinely relied on by SPS in the ordinary course of its business. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-7; see also Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Thomas, 150 AD3d 1312, 1313, 52 NYS3d 894, 895 [2d Dept 2017] (“The appellants’ contention that Greenwood’s affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay because she did not have personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures is without merit”).) Records relied upon by plaintiff in a foreclosure action are admissible pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule if the affiant attests to being personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of the plaintiff. (See CPLR 4518 [a]; see also Bank of NY Mellon v Alli, 156 AD3d 597, 599 [2d Dept 2017]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Talley, 153 AD3d 583, 583 [2d Dept 2017]; Arch Bay Holdings, LLC v Albanese, 146 AD3d 849, 853 [2d Dept 2017]; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Baritz, 144 AD3d 618, 620 [2d Dept 2016]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Brewton, 142 AD3d 683, 685 [2d Dept 2016]). According to Mr. Riquelme’s sworn testimony, the records he relied on are made at or near the time of the transactions by a person with personal knowledge and include, among other things, the business records of prior holders and servicers, including Plaintiff, which were incorporated into SPS’s own business records. (See SPS Aff., ¶ 5; see also U.S. Bank N.A. v Carey, 137 AD3d 894, 28 NYS3d 68 [2d Dept 2016] (finding that affiant’s testimony and reliance on business records of prior loan servicer was sufficient to support plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment); see also Plymouth Rock Fuel Corp. v Leucadia, Inc., 117 AD2d 727, 498 NYS.2d 453 [2d Dept 1986] (finding that a proper foundation may also be provided where an entity shows that it routinely relies upon the business records of another entity in the performance of its own business); 5 11 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022 Merrill Lynch Bus. Fin. Servs., Inc. v Trataros Const., Inc., 30 AD3d 336, 337, 819 NYS.2d 223, 223-24 [1st Dept 2006] (holding that “a proper business records foundation for these statements was laid by plaintiff’s witness, who testified, inter alia, that plaintiff relies on these statements in the regular course of its business even though they were prepared not by plaintiff but for plaintiff by a sister company”); Elkaim v Elkaim, 176 AD2d 116, 574 NYS2d 2 [1st Dept 1991], quoting 5 Weinstein, Korn and Miller, New York Civil Practice, § 4518.18 for the proposition that judicial notice can provide a foundation for admitting records of a particular business; Goldman Sachs Mtge. Co. v Mares, 135 AD3d 1121 [3d Dept 2018] (finding that itwas not necessary for plaintiff’s loan servicer to have personal knowledge of the creation of the account records, “…he could testify from his review of [the] business records”); Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Monica, 131 AD3d 737, 15 NYS.3d 863 [3d Dept 2015]). Therefore, Mr. Riquelme’s affidavit constitutes competent and admissible evidence of Plaintiff’s standing. (See CPLR 4518; see also Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Naughton, 137 AD3d 1199, 1200 [2d Dept 2016] (affidavit from loan servicer admissible); Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Jimenez, 62 Misc 3d 811, 819 [Sup Ct., Suffolk County, 2018] (affidavit from Ocwen employee admissible); U.S. Bank N.A. v Matrinez, No. 2013-10808, 2015 NY Misc LEXIS 3134, 2015 NY Slip Op 31603[U] *4 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County, 2015] (affidavit from Ocwen employee admissible)). Based on SPS’s loan records, SPS, as custodian on behalf of Plaintiff, was in physical possession of the Note since March 9, 2015. (See SPS Aff., ¶ 14). As such, Plaintiff has been the holder of the original Note and Mortgage prior to commencement of the action, and Defendant’s default in remitting a payment that became due on September 1, 2012, and thereafter. (See SPS Aff., ¶¶ 14-15). 6 12 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022 Thus, all that is required to establish standing in a foreclosure action is that the foreclosing plaintiff be in possession of the original note prior to commencement. As the foregoing demonstrates, Plaintiff was in possession of the Note and Mortgage prior to the commencement of the action and established it had standing to commence the foreclosure action. As such, Plaintiff has established its right to default judgment and for an order of reference. (See Mishal v Fiduciary Holdings, LLC, 109 AD3d 885 [2d Dept 2013]; Charter One Bank v Houston, 300 AD2d 429 [2d Dept 2002]; First Nationwide Bank, FSB v Goodman, 272 AD2d 433 [2d Dept 2000]). B. The Supplemental Affidavit Further Establishes Plaintiff’s Standing Here, Plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting the unpaid Note, endorsed in blank, the Mortgage, and evidence of the deceased Borrower’s failure to make the required loan payments. This showing shifts the burden to Defendant to substantiate his affirmative defenses with evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of those defenses. (See Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v Karastathis, 237 AD2d 558 [2d Dept 1997]). As previously established, Defendant, a tenant with no deed ownership interest or connection to the Note and Mortgage, is unable to present evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to Plaintiff’s prima facie case requires summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. (See First Nationwide Bank, FSB v. Goodman, 272 AD2d 433 [2d Dept 2000]; Horizons Invs. Corp. v Brecevich, 104 AD3d 475 [1st Dept 2013]). Even assuming arguendo that the SPS Aff. is not deemed to establish Plaintiff’s standing (although it does), the Supplemental SPS Aff. clearly establishes that Plaintiff was in possession of the subject note prior to the commencement of the present action. (See Supplemental SPS Aff., generally.) In addition to the extensive testimony in the SPS Aff., Daniel Maynes also goes into painstaking detail with regard to the review of SPS’s business records. (See Supplemental SPS Aff., ¶¶ 2-6). 7 13 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022 Additionally, the Supplemental SPS Aff. also provides the business records relied upon to confirm that SPS was in possession of the subject note prior to the commencement of the instant action. (See Supplemental SPS Aff., ¶¶ 13-14, Exs. E, F). SPS’s Contact History business record is maintained and relied upon for evidencing and confirming the possession of the subject note. (See Supplemental SPS Aff., ¶ 13, Ex. E). This information provides the independent proof of possession that Defendant alleges Plaintiff does not provide. (See Izquierdo Aff., ¶ 27). As such, the Supplemental SPS Aff. further establishes Plaintiff’s standing. III. DEFENDANT’S FRAUD AND FORGERY CLAIMS ARE WITHOUT MERIT Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the accompanying Watson Aff., dated April 19, 2022, to address the fraud and forgery issues asserted by Defendant. (See Watson Aff., generally.) IV. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED Defendant’s failure to submit opposition addressing Plaintiff’s prima facie case for foreclosure requires summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. “It is settled that in 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 NY v O’Kane, 308 AD2d 482, 482 [2d Dept 2003]; Bank Leumi Trust Co. v Lightning Park, Inc., 215 AD2d 246 [1st Dept 1995]). Once a foreclosing plaintiff establishes its prima facie case, the burden shifts to the answering defendant to demonstrate, through the submission of admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense to the foreclosure. (See Aames Funding Corp. v Houston, 44 AD3d 692 [2d Dept 2007]). Here, Plaintiff established its prima face entitlement to summary judgment by submitting the subject promissory note (NYSCEF Doc. No. 43), the mortgage (NYSCEF Doc. No. 44), and proof of Defendant’s default (Supplemental SPS Aff., Ex. F). There is no affidavit from Defendant 8 14 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022 or anything else in the opposition disputing the validity and enforceability of the note and mortgage, or Borrower’s default thereunder. The absence of evidence to rebut Plaintiff’s prima facie case should be deemed a concession that no questions of fact exists and summary judgment should be granted. (See e.g. 114 Woodbury Realty, LLC v 10 Bethpage Rd., LLC, 178 AD3d 757, 761 [2d Dept 2019] (“Where a party fails to oppose some or all matters advanced on a motion for summary judgment, the facts as alleged in the movant’s papers may be deemed admitted as there is, in effect, a concession that no question of fact exists.”); Kuehne & Nagel, Inc. v Baiden, 36 NY2d 539, 544 [1975] (“Facts appearing in the movant’s papers which the opposing party does not controvert, may be deemed to be admitted…and there is, in effect, a concession that no question of fact exists.”); Signor v Rochester, 73 AD2d 837, 837 [4th Dept 1979] (“Since the facts set forth by the defendant [movant] are not controverted, those facts may be deemed to be admitted.”); Bronowski v Magnus Enters., Inc., 61 AD2d 879, 879 [4th Dept 1978] (“A general denial is insufficient to raise a factual issue on a summary judgment motion.”); Gruen v Deyo, 218 AD2d 865 [3d Dept 1995]; SportsChannel Assoc. v Sterling Mets, L.P., 25 AD3d 314 [1st Dept 2006]). Moreover, Defendant’s failure to raise his remaining affirmative defenses in opposition should be deemed a waiver and abandonment of those defenses. (See e.g. NY Commercial Bank v J. Realty F Rockaway, Ltd., 108 AD3d 756 [2d Dept 2013]; Starkman v City of Long Beach, 106 AD3d 1076 [2d Dept 2013]). Accordingly, summary judgment should be granted on Plaintiff’s cause of action to foreclose the mortgage. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue an Order: (a) pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on its Complaint against Defendant’s Answer; (b) fixing the defaults against the remaining non- answering defendants; (c) appointing a referee pursuant to RPAPL 1321 to compute the amounts 9 15 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022 due and owing to Plaintiff under the subject note and mortgage; (d) amending the caption in this action; and (e) for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: New York, NY June 2, 2022 Respectfully Submitted, HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee, for the Certificateholders of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., Trust 20005-WMC5, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-WMC5, __/s/ Ronald H. Park________ Victor L. Matthews, Esq. Ronald H. Park, Esq. 800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor New York, New York 10022 Phone: (212) 471-6200 E-mail: rpark@hinshawlaw.com 10 16 of 17 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 716943/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2022 WORD COUNT CERTIFICATION I hereby certify pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.8-b(c) that the total number of words in the Reply Memorandum Of Law In Further Support Of Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment, An Order Of Reference, And Other Ancillary Relief, exclusive of the caption, signature and this Certification is 3,031, and is in compliance with the word count limit. Dated: New York, NY June 2, 2022 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee, for the Certificateholders of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., Trust 20005-WMC5, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series