facts establishing claim in New York

2016Furthermore, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for an order of reference, inasmuch as the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, the mortgage and note, the complaint setting forth the facts establishing the claim, and an affidavit attesting to the default, *859 and Zapata did not appear or answer within the time allowed (see RPAPL 1321; Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Ambrosov, 120 AD3d 1225, 1226 [2014]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Betts, 67 AD3d 735, 736 [2009]).

2016Furthermore, the plaintiff established, prima facie, its entitlement to an order of reference by submitting the mortgage, the unpaid note, the complaint setting forth the facts establishing the claim, and evidence that the defendants defaulted on their payment obligations and failed to appear or answer the complaint within the time allowed (see RPAPL 1321; U.S. Bank N.A. v Norgriff, 131 AD3d 527, 528 [2015]; Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Ambrosov, 120 AD3d 1225, 1226 [2014]).

2020Contrary to the defendants' contention, the plaintiff established its entitlement to an order of reference by submitting, inter alia, the mortgage and note, the complaint setting forth the facts establishing the claim, and an affidavit attesting to the default, and the defendants did not appear or answer within the time allowed ( see RPAPL 1312; Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Emma , 161 AD3d 1131 , 1132; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Taher , 104 AD3d 815, 816 ).

2015The plaintiff was entitled to a new order of reference inasmuch as, in support of its motion, it submitted documentary proof including the mortgage, the unpaid note containing an indorsement from Fremont to the plaintiff, the complaint setting forth the facts establishing its claim, and an affidavit of merit from its mortgage servicer, sworn to on October 11, 2013, attesting to Forde’s default, and Forde neither answered the complaint nor responded to the motion (see RPAPL 1321; Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Ambrosov, 120 AD3d 1225 [2014]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Taher, 104 AD3d 815, 816 [2013]; Bank o

2015Co., Inc. v Fisher, 90 AD3d 823 [2011]).

2012Co., Inc. v Fisher, 90 AD3d 823 [2011]; RPAPL 1321).

2017The plaintiff also was entitled to a new order of reference, since, in support of its motion, it submitted the mortgage, the underlying unpaid note, the complaint setting forth the facts establishing the claim, and an affidavit attesting to the default on the mortgage (see US Bank N.A. v Singer, 145 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2016]; Bank of N.Y.

2017The plaintiff established its entitlement to an order of reference based on its submission of the mortgage, the unpaid note, the complaint, other proof setting forth the facts establishing the claim, an affidavit of an individual authorized to act on its behalf attesting to the default on the note, and proof that the defendants failed to answer within the time allowed (see RPAPL 1321; John T Walsh Enters., LLC v Jordan, 152 AD3d 755, 756 [2017]; LaSalle Bank N.A. v Jagoo, 147 AD3d 746, 746 [2017]; US Bank N.A. v Singer, 145 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2016]).

2016Furthermore, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for an order of reference, inasmuch as the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, the mortgage and note, the complaint setting forth the facts establishing the claim, and an affidavit attesting to the default, *859 and Zapata did not appear or answer within the time allowed (see RPAPL 1321; Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Ambrosov, 120 AD3d 1225, 1226 [2014]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Betts, 67 AD3d 735, 736 [2009]).

2015In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, an affidavit of merit from a representative of its servicing agent, accompanied by a power of attorney demonstrating the authority of the agent to act on behalf of the plaintiff (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Poku, 118 AD3d 980 , 981 [2014]; cf. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Betts, 67 AD3d 735, 736 [2009]), which set forth the facts establishing the claim, including that the plaintiff was the holder of the mortgage and note and that the appellants defaulted thereon, and proof that the appellants failed to answer within the time allowed (see US Bank

2017The plaintiff established its entitlement to an order of reference based on its submission of the mortgage, the unpaid note, the complaint, other proof setting forth the facts establishing the claim, an affidavit of an individual authorized to act on its behalf attesting to the default on the note, and proof that the defendants failed to answer within the time allowed (see RPAPL 1321; John T Walsh Enters., LLC v Jordan, 152 AD3d 755, 756 [2017]; LaSalle Bank N.A. v Jagoo, 147 AD3d 746, 746 [2017]; US Bank N.A. v Singer, 145 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2016]).

2017Kamil (hereinafter the defendant) defaulted under the terms of the note and mortgage, as well as proof that the defendant failed to answer within the time allowed (see US Bank N.A. v Louis, 148 AD3d 758, 759 [2017]; US Bank N.A. v Smith, 132 AD3d 848, 850 [2015]).

2017Mellon v Casale, 140 AD3d at 682 ; U.S. Bank N.A. v Ahmed, 137 AD3d 1106, 1108 [2016]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Gulley, 137 AD3d 1008, 1009 [2016]; Bank of N.Y. v Stein, 130 AD3d at 552 ).

2017Mellon v Casale, 140 AD3d at 682 ; U.S. Bank N.A. v Ahmed, 137 AD3d 1106, 1108 [2016]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Gulley, 137 AD3d 1008, 1009 [2016]; Bank of N.Y. v Stein, 130 AD3d at 552 ).

2017The plaintiff established its entitlement to an order of reference based on its submission of the mortgage, the unpaid note, the complaint, other proof setting forth the facts establishing the claim, an affidavit of an individual authorized to act on its behalf attesting to the default on the note, and proof that the defendants failed to answer within the time allowed (see RPAPL 1321; John T Walsh Enters., LLC v Jordan, 152 AD3d 755, 756 [2017]; LaSalle Bank N.A. v Jagoo, 147 AD3d 746, 746 [2017]; US Bank N.A. v Singer, 145 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2016]).

2017Kamil (hereinafter the defendant) defaulted under the terms of the note and mortgage, as well as proof that the defendant failed to answer within the time allowed (see US Bank N.A. v Louis, 148 AD3d 758, 759 [2017]; US Bank N.A. v Smith, 132 AD3d 848, 850 [2015]).

2016To the extent that Walworth raises an argument on appeal regarding that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was, in effect, to amend the caption, that branch of the motion was not addressed by the Supreme Court and, thus, remains pending and undecided (see Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536, 542-543 [1979]).

2016Furthermore, the plaintiff established, prima facie, its entitlement to an order of reference by submitting the mortgage, the unpaid note, the complaint setting forth the facts establishing the claim, and evidence that the defendants defaulted on their payment obligations and failed to appear or answer the complaint within the time allowed (see RPAPL 1321; U.S. Bank N.A. v Norgriff, 131 AD3d 527, 528 [2015]; Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Ambrosov, 120 AD3d 1225, 1226 [2014]).

2016The defendants, who failed to *831 respond to the plaintiff’s motion, despite being duly served with the motion papers and receiving an adjournment of the return date, thereby failed to assert any viable defenses (see NationStar Mtge., LLC v Silveri, 126 AD3d 864, 865 [2015]).

2015Furthermore, the Supreme Court' improperly, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint and cancellation of the notice of pendency (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Gioia, 114 AD3d 766, 767 [2014]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Taher, 104 AD3d at 817 ).

2014The plaintiff established prima facie that, due to a scrivener’s error, the Schedule A legal description appended to the mortgage referenced incorrect tax lot numbers, and that, in accordance *1227 with the intent of the parties, Schedule A should have referred to the tax lot number corresponding to the street address by which the mortgage described the subject property (see Harris v Uhlendorf, 24 NY2d 463, 467 [1969]).

1999The verified complaint, like the applicant’s affidavit for which it may substitute, must set forth the facts establishing the claim (see, CPLR 3215 [f]; see also, Celnick v Freitag, 242 AD2d 436, 437 ; Kahn v Friedlander, 90 AD2d 868 ).