Case Name: Enhanced Acquisitions II, LLC, Respondent, v. McSam Tribeca, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.); Enhanced Acquisitions II, LLC, Respondent, v. Sarla Sai, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-07-06
Citations: 141 A.D.3d 506
Docket Number: 
Parties: Enhanced Acquisitions II, LLC, Respondent, v McSam Tribeca, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Enhanced Acquisitions II, LLC, Respondent, v Sarla Sai, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.)
Judges: Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 141
Pages: 506–506

Head Matter:
Enhanced Acquisitions II, LLC, Respondent, v McSam Tribeca, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Enhanced Acquisitions II, LLC, Respondent, v Sarla Sai, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.)
[33 NYS3d 910]

Opinion:
— In two related actions to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants McSam Tribeca, LLC, Ashok Dhabuwala, and Sarla Sai, LLC, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated April 24, 2014, as denied those branches of their pre-answer motions which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaints insofar as asserted against them on the ground of lack of standing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The appellants made pre-answer motions, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaints insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing to maintain the mortgage foreclosure actions against them. Accordingly, the burden was on the appellants to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff lacked standing (see Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Vitellas, 131 AD3d 52, 59-60 [2015]). The appellants offered no such evidence.
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the appellants' pre-answer motions which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaints insofar as asserted against them on the ground of lack of standing.
Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.