Just to add to the NY cases that cite standing must be comenced before the summons and complaint is filed. Additionally, this case also states that the issue of standing doesn't always need to to be raised in the answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss.
The defendants first addressed the issue of the assignment in a February 3, 2008, reply affirmation of counsel which pointed out that Wells Fargo lacked standing to bring the action. Wells Fargo argues that the Supreme Court erred in relying on this argument, as it was first raised in the defendants' reply papers. "The function of reply papers is to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant and not to permit the movant to introduce new arguments in support of, or new grounds for the motion" (Matter of Harleysville Ins. Co. v Rosario, 17 AD3d 677, 677-678 ; see also Matter of TIG Ins. Co. v Pellegrini, 258 AD2d 658 ; Dannasch v Bifulco, 184 AD2d 415, 417 ). Here, however, 207*207 the Supreme Court correctly recognized that the defendants' raising of the issue of standing in their reply was proper. The defendants' argument that the plaintiff lacked standing was in response to the plaintiff's submission of the assignment, presented for the first time in the papers the plaintiff submitted in opposition to the motion. Accordingly, the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its discretion, properly considered the response to the new evidence offered for the first time in the reply (see Matter of Kennelly v Mobius Realty Holdings LLC, 33 AD3d 380, 382 ).In sum, inasmuch as the assignment was not made until after the summons was filed, Wells Fargo had no standing to bring this action. Therefore, the order is affirmed.