*481The defendant, Andrew D. Kydes, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Christiana Trust, a Division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB Not in Its Individual Capacity but as Trustee of ARLP Trust 5 (Christiana Trust).1 On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred: (1) in relying upon a "procedural default" to find that the named plaintiff, Bank of America, N.A. (Bank of America), had standing to bring the instant action, and thus that the court had subject matter jurisdiction over the action; and (2) in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on his claim that Bank of America lacked standing to bring this action. We disagree, and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following procedural history is relevant to the defendant's claims on appeal. In 2012, Bank of America commenced this action against the defendant. On March 13, 2014, the defendant filed an answer and several special defenses, including the special defense alleging that Bank of America "has made false and fictitious claims without any supporting admissible evidence," and thus that it lacked standing to bring this action.
On March 13, 2015, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss this action on the ground, inter alia, that Bank of America lacked standing to bring it. On April 29, 2015, the court denied the motion to dismiss because the defendant failed to appear on the date the motion was scheduled for argument.2
*482*113On May 14, 2015, Bank of America served the defendant with requests for admission pursuant to Practice Book § 13-22, in which it asked the defendant to admit, inter alia, that Bank of America was the holder of the underlying promissory note when this action was commenced and that the defendant had defaulted on his obligation to make payments to it under the note. On June 4, 2015, the defendant, without answering or objecting to the requests for admission, filed a motion for a protective order, pursuant to Practice Book § 13-5, in which he asserted that the plaintiff's requests for admission, in their entirety, were "fraudulent" and "made in bad faith ... as a perpetuation of systematic unfair and deceptive practices." He further asserted that the "requests for admission and its content is outside of the scope of allowable discovery, and seeks an admission of facts which are known by [the] plaintiff to be false." On June 5, 2015, Bank of America filed an objection to the defendant's motion for a protective order.
On June 19, 2015, the defendant filed a corrected motion for a protective order concerning several additional discovery requests that Bank of America had directed to him. On July 17, 2015, the court sustained Bank of America's objection to the defendant's original motion for a protective order and summarily denied his corrected motion for a protective order.
On July 29, 2015, Bank of America filed a "Notice of Intent to Rely on [the] Requests to Admit," in which it asserted that the defendant's failure to respond to its requests for admission had resulted in his admission of all matters as to which admissions had been requested pursuant to Practice Book § 13-23 (a).3 On July 31, 2015, *483more than six weeks after the thirty day period within which the defendant was required to answer or object to the requests for admission pursuant to Practice Book § 13-23 (a) had expired, the defendant finally responded to such requests for admission, denying them all without limitation or qualification. *114On July 31, 2015, Bank of America filed a motion for summary judgment as to liability only. Bank of America reiterated, in support of that motion, that by failing to answer or object to its requests for admission in the time required by law, the defendant had admitted all matters as to which admissions had been requested, which included all facts necessary to establish both its standing to bring this action and its right to prevail against the defendant. The defendant filed an objection to Bank of America's motion for summary judgment, claiming, inter alia, that the underlying note was fraudulent, that Bank of America had not been the holder of *484the note prior to the commencement of this action, and thus that it lacked standing to pursue this foreclosure action. The defendant filed no affidavits or other evidence in support of his standing challenge.
On September 8, 2015, the court held a hearing on the motion for summary judgment and the defendant's objection thereto. At the hearing, Bank of America argued that the defendant's failure to timely answer or object to its requests for admission had resulted in his admission, inter alia, that when Bank of America commenced this action, it was the holder of the underlying note, and that the defendant had defaulted on his obligation to make payments to it under the note. Bank of America, through its counsel, also presented to the court the original note. The defendant sought to have the hearing on the motion for summary judgment continued and requested an evidentiary hearing thereon. In support of that request, the defendant argued that an evidentiary hearing was necessary so that he might submit "[t]wo certified sealed depositions from entities in this case, who are admitting that they did not sign documents in other cases." When asked about his failure to timely answer or object to the plaintiff's requests for admission, the defendant argued that he had not been properly served with those requests because they had been served upon his counsel electronically. The court responded by observing that the defendant had not filed any motion asserting that the plaintiff's requests for admission had not been properly served. Because, moreover, notwithstanding the defendant's eleventh hour claim that the requests for admission had not been properly served upon him, he had previously moved for a protective order with respect to such requests and later denied them, the court ruled that he had waived his claim of improper service. The court finally noted that the defendant had not filed any motion "asking the court to be relieved from the failure to *485initially file responses to the request[s] for admission, [pursuant to Practice Book § 13-24 (a) ]4 and the time has passed." (Footnote added.) The court thereafter informed the parties that it would consider the motions on the papers. *115On September 18, 2015, Bank of America filed a motion to substitute Christiana Trust as the party plaintiff, claiming that it had assigned the underlying mortgage to it. On October 2, 2015, the trial court summarily granted the motion to substitute.5
On December 30, 2015, the court issued the following order: "Having heard the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment ... the court finds that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to ... (i) the plaintiff's standing to prosecute this foreclosure action and (ii) the liability of the defendant ... on the note and mortgage. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability only is hereby granted with respect to the defendant. A determination of the amount of *486indebtedness is deferred until such time as the plaintiff seeks a judgment of foreclosure. Practice Book §§ 17-44 through 17-51." On February 4, 2016, the defendant filed a motion to reargue, which the court denied on May 13, 2016, reasoning as follows: "The defendant ... has failed to demonstrate a controlling decision or principle of law that has been overlooked, a misapprehension of facts, inconsistencies in the court's order ... granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability on its complaint against the defendant ... or claims of law that were not addressed; rather, the defendant improperly seeks to have a 'second bite of the apple' under the guise of a motion for reconsideration."
On March 24, 2016, Christiana Trust filed a motion for judgment of strict foreclosure. An evidentiary hearing on the motion was held on June 15, 2016. At that hearing, the defendant repeatedly attempted to reargue the motion for summary judgment, but not on the ground that Christiana Trust lacked standing. Instead, the defendant argued that Christiana Trust did not have a valid lien against him. The court repeatedly reminded the defendant at the hearing that his argument was improper because it had already ruled that Bank of America had standing to pursue its foreclosure claim against him and that he was liable to Christiana Trust on the underlying note. Later that same day, the court rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure, determined the amount of the debt and set the law day for July 19, 2016. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in relying upon a "procedural default" as the basis for finding that Bank of America had standing to bring the instant action against him, and in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on his challenge to Christiana Trust's standing.
*487"Standing is the legal right to set judicial machinery in motion. One cannot rightfully invoke the jurisdiction of the court unless he [or she] has, in an individual or representative capacity, some real interest in the cause of action, or a legal or equitable right, title or interest in the subject matter of the controversy.... [When] a party is found to lack standing, the court is consequently without subject matter jurisdiction to determine the cause.... We have long held that because [a] determination regarding a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, our review is plenary....
"Generally, in order to have standing to bring a foreclosure action the plaintiff must, at the time the action is *116commenced, be entitled to enforce the promissory note that is secured by the property.... The plaintiff's possession of a note endorsed in blank is prima facie evidence that it is a holder and is entitled to enforce the note, thereby conferring standing to commence a foreclosure action.... After the plaintiff has presented this prima facie evidence, the burden is on the defendant to impeach the validity of [the] evidence that [the plaintiff] possessed the note at the time that it commenced the ... action or to rebut the presumption that [the plaintiff] owns the underlying debt.... The defendant [must] set up and prove the facts [that] limit or change the plaintiff's rights ...." (Citation omitted; emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Cornelius , 170 Conn. App. 104, 110-11, 154 A.3d 79, cert. denied, 325 Conn. 922, 159 A.3d 1171 (2017).
"If ... the defendant submits either no proof to rebut the plaintiff's jurisdictional allegations ... or only evidence that fails to call those allegations into question ... the plaintiff need not supply counteraffidavits or other evidence to support the complaint, but may rest on the jurisdictional allegations therein." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
*488Rocky Hill v. SecureCare Realty, LLC , 315 Conn. 265, 278, 105 A.3d 857 (2015).
Here, the defendant filed a motion for a protective order in response to Bank of America's requests for admission, arguing that they were all improper, but did not file a written answer or objection to those requests in accordance with § 13-23 (a). The defendant's failure to timely answer or object to the requests for admission pursuant to § 13-23 (a), and his subsequent failure to ask the court for permission to withdraw or amend those admissions pursuant to § 13-24 (a), resulted in his admission of all the matters as to which admissions were requested.
The defendant claims that the court erred in relying on his admissions, which he claims to have resulted from a "procedural default," as a basis for finding that Bank of America had standing to bring this action against him. The defendant's argument must be rejected, however, on the basis of this court's decision in JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Eldon, 144 Conn. App. 260, 265, 73 A.3d 757, cert. denied, 310 Conn. 935, 79 A.3d 889 (2013). In that case, the plaintiff bank failed to timely respond to the defendant's requests for admission in accordance with the rules of practice. This court recited the ground asserted in the defendant's motion for summary judgment, that "due to the plaintiff's failure to respond to the request[s] for admission, the relevant admissions-that the plaintiff had no legal or equitable interest in the note and mortgage and that the note had been paid in full by a third party-were deemed admitted." Id., at 265, 73 A.3d 757. On the basis of those admissions, the trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant, and this court affirmed that judgment. The facts of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. are indistinguishable from the facts of this case, as both cases involved the rendering of summary judgment on the basis of party admissions resulting from a party's *489failure to respond in timely fashion to its opponent's requests for admission. We therefore conclude that the defendant's claim that the court improperly relied on such admissions as a basis for rendering summary judgment in this case is without merit.
As for the defendant's claim that the trial court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on his oft-repeated challenge to Bank of America's standing to bring this action, that claim must be rejected *117for the simple reason that the defendant never presented any evidence that might have called Bank of America's standing into question. Because Bank of America duly alleged that it possessed the note at the time it commenced this action, it was entitled to rely upon that allegation unless the defendant presented facts to the contrary, which he did not. Because the defendant failed to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether Bank of America was the holder of the note when it commenced this action, the trial court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on that issue. See Equity One, Inc. v. Shivers , 310 Conn. 119, 136, 74 A.3d 1225 (2013).
The judgment is affirmed and the case is remanded for the purpose of setting new law days.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.