| Capital One, N.A. v Brooklyn Flatiron, LLC |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05214 [85 AD3d 837] |
| June 14, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Capital One, N.A., Respondent, v Brooklyn Flatiron, LLC,et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Lazer, Aptheker, Rosella & Yedid, P.C., Melville, N.Y. (Joseph C. Savino of counsel), forrespondent.
In a mortgage foreclosure action, the defendants Brooklyn Flatiron, LLC, and Saadia M.Shapiro appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, KingsCounty (Kurtz, J.), dated February 17, 2010, as granted the plaintiff's motion for summaryjudgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against them and to appoint a referee to computethe total sum due and owing to the plaintiff.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff, Capital One, N.A., established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as amatter of law against the defendants Brooklyn Flatiron, LLC, and Saadia M. Shapiro (hereinaftertogether the defendants), by submitting a mortgage, an unpaid note, and evidence of default (see Fleet Natl. Bank v Olasov, 16AD3d 374 [2005]; Coppa vFabozzi, 5 AD3d 718 [2004]). The burden then shifted to the defendants to raise atriable issue of fact. They failed to do so. Contrary to the defendants' contentions, the plaintiffproved it had standing to sue by tendering sufficient documentary evidence of its merger with theprevious note and mortgage holder, North Fork Bank (see Ladino v Bank of Am., 52 AD3d 571 [2008]). Mastro, J.P.,Angiolillo, Chambers and Cohen, JJ., concur.