DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Diana Smartenko appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Thomas A. Adams, J.), entered February 27, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Diana Smartenko, to strike that defendants answer, and for an order of reference, and denied that defendants cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
On February 14, 2006, the defendant Diana Smartenko (hereinafter the defendant) executed a note in favor of IndyMac Bank, FSB, in the sum of $907,500, which was secured by a mortgage encumbering certain property owned by the defendant. In August 2012, the plaintiff, as the alleged holder of the note and mortgage, commenced this action to foreclose the mortgage against, among others, the defendant. The defendant filed an answer asserting, inter alia, an affirmative defense of lack of standing. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant, to strike the defendants answer, and for an order of reference. The defendant cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her. In an order entered February 27, 2018, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant, to strike the defendants answer, and for an order of reference, and denied the defendants cross motion. The defendant appeals.
“[W]here, as here, a defendant places the plaintiffs standing in issue, the plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief” (JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Austern, 193 A.D.3d 830, 831, 142 N.Y.S.3d 379 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Schmelzinger, 189 A.D.3d 1173, 1174, 138 N.Y.S.3d 540). “A plaintiff establishes its standing in a mortgage foreclosure action by demonstrating that it was either the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action was commenced” (HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Gilbert, 189 A.D.3d 1377, 1379, 138 N.Y.S.3d 131; see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Taylor, 25 N.Y.3d 355, 361–362, 12 N.Y.S.3d 612, 34 N.E.3d 363; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Haughton, 189 A.D.3d 1305, 1306, 134 N.Y.S.3d 201). “A ‘holder’ is a person ‘in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession’ ” (Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Schacker, 185 A.D.3d 1041, 1043, 129 N.Y.S.3d 91, quoting UCC 1–201[b][21][A]; see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Gilbert, 189 A.D.3d at 1379, 138 N.Y.S.3d 131).
Here, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that it had standing by demonstrating that it was in physical possession of the note, endorsed in blank, which was annexed to the complaint, at the time the action was commenced (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Finger, 195 A.D.3d 789, 791, 145 N.Y.S.3d 820; Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Leibowitz, 185 A.D.3d 769, 771, 125 N.Y.S.3d 291). Since standing was established by the annexation of the note to the complaint, the admissibility and sufficiency of an affidavit of an employee of the loan servicer is irrelevant (see Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v. Hershkowitz, 189 A.D.3d 1126, 1128, 138 N.Y.S.3d 54). Further, since the mortgage “passes with the debt as an inseparable incident” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Collymore, 68 A.D.3d 752, 754, 890 N.Y.S.2d 578; see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Taylor, 25 N.Y.3d at 362, 12 N.Y.S.3d 612, 34 N.E.3d 363), the validity of an assignment of the mortgage is irrelevant to the issue of standing (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Taylor, 25 N.Y.3d at 362, 12 N.Y.S.3d 612, 34 N.E.3d 363; Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v. Hershkowitz, 189 A.D.3d at 1128, 138 N.Y.S.3d 54). In opposition to the plaintiffs prima facie showing, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant, to strike the defendants answer, and for an order of reference, and denied the defendants cross motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her.
DILLON, J.P., IANNACCI, CHRISTOPHER and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.