DECISION AND ORDER The facts of this matter are fully set forth in a prior decision of this Court and need not be repeated at length. As relevant here, on December 19, 2005 Ameriquest Mortgage Company issued a loan to defendants in the amount of $104,000.00. This loan was evidenced by a promissory note and secured by a mortgage on real property located at 40 William Street in the Village of Hudson Falls, Washington County. By assignment dated January 20, 2009 and recorded on February 13, 2009, the mortgage was assigned to plaintiff. Defendants subsequently defaulted on their payments under the terms of the loan documents and, on October 23, 2015, plaintiff commenced this foreclosure action. Defendants Michael J. Mercure and Marie D. Trevett served an answer with six affirmative defenses, including lack of standing.1 Plaintiff thereafter moved for summary judgment for the relief requested in the complaint, as well as the appointment of a referee and the removal of defendants John Doe # 1 through John Doe # 12 from the caption. By Decision and Order dated April 27, 2022, the motion was granted to the extent that John Doe # 1 through John Doe # 12 were removed from the caption.2 The motion was otherwise denied, however, with the Court finding that plaintiff failed to sufficiently demonstrate its standing. Presently before the Court is plaintiff’s second motion for summary judgment and the appointment of a referee. Each aspect of the motion will be addressed ad seriatim. “A plaintiff can establish entitlement to summary judgment by producing evidence of the mortgage, the unpaid note and the defendant’s default” (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Walker, 141 AD3d 986, 987 [3d Dept 2016]; see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Monica, 131 AD3d 737, 738 [3d Dept 2015]; Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Ostiguy, 127 AD3d 1375, 1376 [3d Dept 2015]). With that said, “‘[w]here…the issue of standing is raised as an affirmative defense, the plaintiff must also prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief’” (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Monica, 131 AD3d at 738, quoting Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Ostiguy, 127 AD3d at 1376 [citations omitted]; see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Walker, 141 AD3d at 987; Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Catizone, 127 AD3d 1151, 1152 [2d Dept 2015]). “A plaintiff has standing in a mortgage foreclosure action ‘where it is both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced’” (Chase Home Fin., LLC v. Miciotta, 101 AD3d 1307, 1307 [3d Dept 2012], quoting Bank of NY v. Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279 [2d Dept 2011]; accord Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Wine, 90 AD3d 1216, 1217 [3d Dept 2011]; CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Rosenthal, 88 AD3d 759, 761 [2d Dept 2011]). “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. Carnivale, 138 AD3d 1220, 1221 [3d Dept 2016], quoting Onewest Bank, F.S.B. v. Mazzone, 130 AD3d 1399, 1400 [3d Dept 2015]; accord Bank of NY Mellon v. Rutkowski, 148 AD3d 1341, 1341-1342 [3d Dept 2017]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 754 [2d Dept 2009]). In its April 2022 Decision and Order, the Court stated as follows: “Here, plaintiff has submitted the affidavit of Ronald E. Casperite, who is employed as a Senior Loan Analyst by PHH Mortgage Corporation (hereinafter PHH), plaintiff’s servicer and attorney-in-fact. Attached to this affidavit are, inter alia, copies of the limited power of attorney authorizing PHH to act on plaintiff’s behalf; the note; the mortgage, together with proof of recording; the assignment, together with proof of recording; and PHH’s records relative to defendants’ payments and the amount due and owing. “At the outset, the Court finds that plaintiff has submitted ample evidence of defendants’ default under the loan documents. Indeed, there appears to be little dispute in this regard. “Insofar as the issue of standing is concerned, Casperite states as follows: ‘I have access to PHH’s business records, including the business records for and relating to the subject loan,…. I make this affidavit based upon my review of those records relating to the [l]oan and from my own personal knowledge of how the records are kept and maintained. The [l]oan records are maintained by PHH in the course of its regularly conducted business activities and are made at or near the time of the event, by or from information transmitted by a person with personal knowledge. It is the regular practice to keep such records in the ordinary course of a regularly conducted business activity…. ‘Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the [n]ote and [m]ortgage and was the owner and holder of the [n]ote and [m]ortgage since prior to the date of commencement of this action. Additionally, [p]laintiff, through PHH, its servicer and attorney-in-fact, received the original [n]ote, indorsed in blank, on October 22, 2013, and physically possessed the original [n]ote, endorsed in blank, since that date. The original endorsed [n]ote has not been further transferred or assigned to any other entities. Plaintiff, through PHH, its servicer and attorney-in-fact, held the original endorsed [n]ote on October 23, 2015, which is the date that this action was commenced.’ “To the extent that the limited power of attorney authorizing PHH to act on plaintiff’s behalf is dated June 17, 2019, these statements are insufficient to establish standing. Indeed, there is no proof that PHH was authorized to receive the original note on plaintiff’s behalf on October 22, 2013, nor that it was authorized to hold the original note when the action was commenced on October 23, 2015. Under the circumstances, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie showing of its standing through physical possession of the note (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Walker, 141 AD3d 986, 987-988 [3d Dept 2016]; U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Carpentier, 59 Misc 3d 1219[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50629[U], *2 [Sup Ct, Clinton County 2018]; compare U.S. Bank N.A. v. Tecler, 188 AD3d 1320, 1321-1322 [3d Dept 2020]; Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Rutkowski, 148 AD3d 1341, 1342 [3d Dept 2017]). “To the extent that standing may also be established by written assignment, the Court notes that the January 20, 2009 assignment transfers the “mortgage together with the certain note.” That being said, however, it was executed by Citi Residential Lending, Inc. (hereinafter Citi [Residential]) as attorney-in-fact for Ameriquest [Mortgage Company], and a copy of the power of attorney authorizing Citi [Residential] to act on Ameriquest [Mortgage Company]‘s behalf has not been submitted. As a result, the Court further finds that plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie showing of its standing by written assignment of the note (see U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Moomey-Stevens, 168 AD3d 1169, 1172 [3d Dept 2019]; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Venture, 148 AD3d 1269, 1270 [3d Dept 2017]; Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 281 [2d Dept 2011])” [April 2022 Decision and Order, at pp 3-5]. Here, there is once again no dispute relative to defendants’ default under the loan documents — the sole issue is whether plaintiff has remedied the defects outlined above and succeeded in establishing its standing. In this regard, plaintiff has now submitted the affidavit of Benjamin Verdooren, also employed by PHH as a Senior Loan Analyst. Verdooren states, in pertinent part: “Ameriquest [Mortgage Company] and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company…entered into a [P]ooling and [S]ervicing [A]greement dated as of February 1, 2006 whereby the parties created the [p]laintiff trust and Deutsche Bank [National Trust Company] was appointed as the trustee thereof…. “The [l]oan records reflect that Citi Residential…was the prior servicer of the [l]oan on behalf of Ameriquest [Mortgage Company] with full authority to assign the [l]oan pursuant to a power of attorney dated October 31, 2007. The power of attorney was recorded in the Washington County Clerk’s office on February 21, 2008…. “On January 20, 2009, Citi Residential, acting as attorney in fact for Ameriquest [Mortgage Company] pursuant to the 2007 power of attorney and in accordance with the directives in the [Pooling and Servicing Agreement], transferred the mortgage and note to [p]laintiff by written assignment dated January 20, 2009 and recorded in the Office of Washington County Clerk on February 13, 2009….” [Verdooren Affidavit, at
