The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT — SUMMARY. DECISION ORDER ON MOTION Upon the foregoing papers, the motion is determined as follows: The within action is to foreclose on a mortgage on commercial real property located at 2184 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, New York. The present owner of the property is Defendant, The New Sower Christian Church, Inc. (“New Sower”). The mortgage to be foreclosed was given by Defendant Cabrera Realty Corp (“Cabrera”) to secure a loan with an original principal amount of $650,000.00 which is memorialized by a note. The mortgage and note are both dated March 15, 2004. After this mortgage was recorded, Cabrera transferred its entire interest in the premises to Defendant New Sower by deed dated November 11, 2011, which was recorded on December 1, 2011. On the same date as the transfer, New Sower gave a mortgage on the property at issue to Defendant 2184 Amsterdam Realty Corp. (“Amsterdam”) to secure a loan of $227,935.00. Plaintiff asserts it was not given notice of the transfer of ownership or the Amsterdam mortgage. Plaintiff initially commenced this action to foreclose on its mortgage based upon Defendant Cabrera and New Sower’s alleged default in payment of the mortgage. In an amended complaint, Plaintiff withdrew its claim of non-payment and pled Defendants defaulted by failing to obtain Plaintiff’s written consent to transfer the premises and by New Sower encumbering the premises with a second mortgage without Plaintiff’s written consent. New Sower answered and pled an affirmative defense of ratification claiming that it unfailingly paid the installments on the mortgage for eight years after being deeded the premises and that Plaintiff unilaterally determined to stop accepting payments in 2019. New Sower also pled two counterclaims. Plaintiff replied to the counterclaims. An earlier motion by Plaintiff for summary judgment was denied by order of this Court dated April 15, 2020, on the basis that it sought summary judgment on unpleaded claims, that the amended complaint was not timely filed, and that issue was not joined on the latter pleading. Now, Plaintiff moves for summary judgment against the appearing Defendants, a default judgment against the non-appearing Defendants, an order of reference and to amend the caption. Defendant New Sower opposes the motion. In moving for summary judgment, Plaintiff was required to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law though proof of the mortgage, the note, and evidence of Defendants’ default in repayment (see U.S. Bank, N.A. v. James, 180 AD3d 594 [1st Dept 2020]; Bank of NY v. Knowles, 151 AD3d 596 [1st Dept 2017]; Fortress Credit Corp. v. Hudson Yards, LLC, 78 AD3d 577 [1st Dept 2010]). A mortgagor’s default, “is established by (1) an admission made in response to a notice to admit, (2) an affidavit from a person having personal knowledge of the facts, or (3) other evidence in admissible form” (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. McGann, 183 AD3d 700, 702 [2d Dept 2020]). Proof supporting a prima facie case on a motion for summary judgment must be in admissible form (see CPLR §3212[b]; Tri-State Loan Acquisitions III, LLC v. Litkowski, 172 AD3d 780 [1st Dept 2019]). In support of a motion for summary judgment on a cause of action for foreclosure, a plaintiff may rely on evidence from persons with personal knowledge of the facts, documents in admissible form and/or persons with knowledge derived from produced admissible records (see eg U.S. Bank N.A. v. Moulton, 179 AD3d 734, 738 [2d Dept 2020]). No particular set of business records must be proffered, as long as the admissibility requirements of CPLR 4518[a] are fulfilled and the records evince the facts for which they are relied upon (see eg Citigroup v. Kopelowitz, 147 AD3d 1014, 1015 [2d Dept 2017]). Plaintiff’s motion was supported by affidavits from Joanne Orelli (“Orelli”), a Senior Vice President of Plaintiff, William B. Corcoran (“Corcoran”), a Vice President at Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc. (“DMI”), purportedly a “sub-servicer” for Plaintiff, and Patrick Gurdgiel (“Gurdgiel”), a Senior Leader of Operations at CoreLogic Tax Services LLC (“CoreLogic”), an alleged provider of real estate tax services to DMI. Attached to the affidavits were the documents which formed the basis of some of the affiants’ knowledge. The affidavits and referenced documents established the mortgage, note, and evidence of mortgagor’s default and was sufficiently supported by appropriate documentary evidence in evidentiary form (see eg Bank of NY v. Knowles, supra; Fortress Credit Corp. v. Hudson Yards, LLC, supra). As to the default by the Mortgagor Cabrera, Plaintiff demonstrated it violated the provisions in the mortgage (
