Majority
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Adam Goldberg and Marlaine Goldberg appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (McMahon, J.), dated October 31, 2013, as, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In a mortgage foreclosure action, the plaintiff has standing where it is the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355 , 361 [2015]). “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” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752 , 754 [2009]).
Here, the plaintiff, which commenced this action in its capac
Cases cited
- Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Taylor 25 NY3d 355 at 361 p. 880
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Collymore 68 AD3d 752 at 754 p. 880
- CWCapital Asset Management, LLC v. Great Neck Towers, LLC 99 AD3d 850 at 851 p. 881
- Fairbanks Capital Corp. v. Nagel 289 AD2d 99 at 100 p. 881
- Grassi & Co. v. Janover Rubinroit, LLC 82 AD3d 700 at 703 p. 881