MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Gustavia Home, LLC (“Gustavia” or “plaintiff”) brings this diversity action1 against Nicholas Bent, Midland Funding, LLC (“Midland”), and John Doe defendants claiming to have an interest in or lien upon the mortgaged premises (collectively, “defendants”) pursuant to New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”) §1301 et seq. to foreclose on a mortgage encumbering the property located at 145 Boylston Street, Hempstead, New York 11550 in the County of Nassau and State of New York (the “Subject Property”).Plaintiff moves for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) and requests that the Court strike defendant Bent’s answer and affirmative defenses.2 Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed. Having independently analyzed the record, the Court concludes that plaintiff has met the burden of proof required in a mortgage foreclosure action, and defendants have not put forth any evidence (nor is there any evidence in the record) that would support a defense to the foreclosure claim. In short, the Court concludes that the uncontroverted evidence demonstrates that plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment in this mortgage foreclosure action. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted. In light of the Court’s ruling on the summary judgment motion, the motion to strike defendant Bent’s answer and affirmative defenses is denied as moot.I. BACKGROUNDA. FactsThe Court takes the following facts from plaintiff’s complaint, affidavits, exhibits,3 and Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts, and construes the facts in the light most favorable to the defendants, the nonmoving parties. See Capobianco v. City of New York, 422 F.3d 47, 50 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). As noted above, defendants failed to submit an opposition to plaintiff’s motion, including a Counter-Statement of Material Facts, in violation of Local Civil Rule 56.1.However, the Second Circuit has clearly established that a district court may not grant an unopposed summary judgment motion without carefully analyzing the moving papers to determine whether the moving party has satisfied its burden of demonstrating that there are no issues of material fact. See Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241, 244 (2d Cir. 2004) (“[W]here the non-moving party ‘chooses the perilous path of failing to submit a response to a summary judgment motion, the district court may not grant the motion without first examining the moving party’s submission to determine if it has met its burden of demonstrating that no material issue of fact remains for trial.’” (quoting Amaker v. Foley, 274 F.3d 677, 681 (2d Cir. 2001))); Jackson v. Fed. Express, 766 F.3d 189, 194 (2d Cir. 2014) (same). Moreover, the court may not rely solely on the moving party’s statement of undisputed facts. Vt. Teddy Bear Co., 373 F.3d at 244. Instead, the court “must be satisfied that the citation to evidence in the record supports the assertion[s]” made by the moving party. Id.; Bakker v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., No. 03 CV 0356(SJ)(LB), 2006 WL 3257238, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2006) (same).As set forth above, the Court has examined plaintiff’s submission to determine that no disputes as to material facts remain for trial. The Court examined not only plaintiff’s motion and Rule 56.1 statement, but also verified facts presented in these submissions in plaintiff’s exhibits, such as the copies of the Mortgage and Note, assignments, and the Default and Pre-Foreclosure Notices. Thus, the summary of the facts below is fully supported by the evidence submitted by plaintiff in the record.Plaintiff brings this action against defendants pursuant to RPAPL §1301 et seq. to foreclose upon the Subject Property pursuant to the terms of a Note and Mortgage executed on May 27, 2005. (Compl.
11-12.) Defendant Bent4 executed and delivered the Note and Mortgage to Golden First Mortgage Corp. for $65,800.00 and interest, secured by a lien on the Subject Property. (Id.
