For Plaintiff: Michael J. Bonneville of counsel, Kriss & Feuerstein LLP, New York, NY. For Defendants1: Dan M. Blumenthal of counsel, Wenig Saltiel LLP, New York, NY. In July 2017, defendant Haimil Realty Corporation executed a $1.5M promissory note in favor of 209 East 2nd Street Lender LLC (Original Plaintiff). As security for repayment, Haimil Realty and the Original Plaintiff executed a mortgage and assignment of leases and rents and security agreement that encumbered commercial real property located at 209 East Second Street. Defendant Menachem Haimovich executed a guarantee that secured the note. The Original Plaintiff brought this action in 2018, alleging that Haimil Realty defaulted on the note and that Haimovich defaulted on his obligations under the guarantee, and seeking to foreclose on the mortgage. In August 2019, while the action was pending, the Original Plaintiff assigned the note and mortgage to Maguire 209 East 2nd LLC (Proposed Plaintiff). The Proposed Plaintiff now seeks to continue the action against defendants in place of the Original Plaintiff. If permitted to do so, the Proposed Plaintiff asks this court to grant summary judgment against defendants under CPLR 3212, to appoint a referee to compute money owed, and to award other related relief. The Proposed Plaintiff’s motion is granted in full. DISCUSSION I. Whether the Proposed Plaintiff Has Standing to Continue This Action Defendants contend that the Proposed Plaintiff lacks standing to continue the action in place of the Original Plaintiff, and therefore that the Proposed Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment must be denied. This court disagrees. Defendants assert that CPLR 1012 and 1013 govern when a party may intervene, such that the Proposed Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the requirements of these sections forecloses its standing. But the Proposed Plaintiff is not seeking to intervene in a foreclosure action between two other parties on the ground that it has an interest in the action; it is seeking to continue the action directly, in the shoes of the Original Plaintiff. CPLR 1018 provides that “upon transfer of interest, an action may be continued against the original parties unless a court directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted or joined in the action.” In the specific context of foreclosure actions, CPLR 1018 authorizes the assignee of a mortgage to continue the action in the name of the original mortgagee without first having been substituted into the action. (See Central Fed Savings, F.S.B. v. 405 W. 45th St., Inc., 242 AD2d 512, 512 [1st Dept 1997].) The Proposed Plaintiff thus may continue this action in the place of the Original Plaintiff without regard to the intervention requirements of CPLR 1012 or 1013. Defendants argue in the alternative that the Proposed Plaintiff cannot continue the action because it (assertedly) has failed to show that it is the assignee or holder of the promissory note, as opposed to being the assignee of the mortgage. (See NYSCEF No. 150 at
34, 35, 39, 40.) But the instrument assigning the mortgage from the Original Plaintiff to the Proposed Plaintiff expressly provides that the assignment encompasses both the mortgage and “the bonds or notes or obligations described in said mortgage, and the monies due and to grow due thereon with the interest” — that is to say, the note. (NYSCEF No. 143 at 3 [capitalization omitted].) That is sufficient. (See U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 754 [2d Dept 2009].) In any event, on reply the Proposed Plaintiff also submits a copy of the note with an attached allonge dated August 14, 2019, endorsing the note to the Proposed Plaintiff. (See NYSCEF No. 155 at 15; see also NYSCEF No. 154 at
