DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. v. Mahadeo

DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. v Mahadeo 2026 NY Slip Op 05719 October 6, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v Hardayal Mahadeo also known as Hardy Mahadeo, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Decided and Entered: October 06, 2026 Index No. 36033/15|Appeal No. 7152|Case No. 2025-04528| Before: Moulton, J.P., Gesmer, Shulman, Hagler, Parker-Raso, JJ. Law Office of Sean Sabeti, Great Neck (Sean Sabeti of counsel), for appellants. Friedman Vartolo LLP, New York (Ronald P. Labeck of counsel), for respondent. [*1] Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Naita A. Semaj, J.), entered on or about April 9, 2025, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, denied defendant Hardayal Mahadeo's motion to dismiss the complaint and appointed a referee to compute, deemed to be, pursuant to CPLR 5501(c), an appeal from judgment of foreclosure and sale, same court and Justice, entered May 22, 2026, and the judgment, so considered, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Contrary to defendant's argument, this Court's prior order, which remanded this mortgage foreclosure action for "further proceedings" after identifying an issue of fact as to standing (see DLJ Mtge. Capital v Mahadeo, 166 AD3d 512, 513 [1st Dept 2018]), did not limit what proceedings were to be taken or vitiate a motion for summary judgment. Moreover, plaintiff's standing was established on its motion for summary judgment by the attachment of a copy of the original note, indorsed in blank, to the certificate of merit filed with the summons and complaint (see Bank of Am., N.A. v Brannon, 156 AD3d 1, 6 [1st Dept 2017]). Defendant's presentation of a prior version of the note, identical except without subsequently added allonges, was insufficient to raise a question of fact regarding standing (see Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy v Theagene, 201 AD3d 1015, 1017 [2d Dept 2022]). Having established standing, plaintiff demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment by producing the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of the default (see U.S. Bank N.A. v 1226 Evergreen Bapaz LLC, 227 AD3d 429, 430 [1st Dept 2024]). In opposition, defendant did not deny his executing the note and mortgage, nor defaulting in payment. Nor did he raise a triable issue of fact as to his affirmative defenses, which he largely abandoned, having failed to address them in opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (see New York Commercial Bank v J. Realty F Rockaway, Ltd., 108 AD3d 756, 756-757 [2d Dept 2013]). We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: October 6, 2026