| NYCTL 1998-2 Trustee v 2388 Nostrand Corp. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00122 [69 AD3d 594] |
| January 5, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| NYCTL 1998-2 Trustee et al., Appellants, v 2388Nostrand Corp., Respondent, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1]
In an action to foreclose a tax lien, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court,Kings County (Levine, J.), dated August 3, 2007, which denied their motion for summaryjudgment on the complaint, to strike the answer, affirmative defense, and counterclaim of thedefendant 2388 Nostrand Corp., to amend the caption to name the plaintiffs as NYCTL 1998-2Trustee and the Bank of New York, as Collateral Agent and Custodian for the NYCTL 1998-2Trust, to strike John Does as party defendants, and to appoint a referee to compute the total sumsdue and owing to the plaintiffs.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motion forsummary judgment on the complaint, to strike the answer, affirmative defense, and counterclaimof the defendant 2388 Nostrand Corp., to amend the caption to name the plaintiffs as NYCTL1998-2 Trustee and the Bank of New York, as Collateral Agent and Custodian for the NYCTL1998-2 Trust, to strike John Does as party defendants, and to appoint a referee to compute thetotal sums due and owing to the plaintiffs is granted, and the caption is amended accordingly.
In this action to foreclose a tax lien, the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of entitlementto judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the respondent did not pay the outstandingbalance due under the lien (see NYCTL1996-1 Trust v Orit Diagnostic Ctr., Inc., 19 AD3d 668 [2005]). In opposition, therespondent failed to raise a triable issue of fact rebutting the plaintiffs' showing or as to the meritof its affirmative defenses or its counterclaim (see Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Perez, 41 AD3d 590 [2007];Trans World Grocers v Sultana Crackers, 257 AD2d 616, 617 [1999]; Home Sav. ofAm. v Isaacson, 240 AD2d 633 [1997]). Similarly, the plaintiffs demonstrated theirentitlement to relief on the remaining branches of their motion. Accordingly, the Supreme Courtshould have granted the plaintiffs' motion in its entirety. Covello, J.P., Angiolillo, Lott andRoman, JJ., concur.