On December 23, 2025, Justice Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Truist Equip. Fin. Corp. v. Tebele, 2025 NY Slip Op. 35031(U), holding that the assignee of a claim has standing to continue an action brought in the assignor’s name without substitution, explaining:
As an initial matter, Mr. Tebele contends that, until assignee Arba is formally substituted for current plaintiff (and assignor) Truist, neither Arba nor Truist have standing to sue Mr. Tebele under the Guaranty. This is incorrect.
CPLR 1018 provides that upon any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original parties unless the court directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted or joined in the action. As the plain language indicates, that statute permits an assignee to continue an action in the name of the original party, even in the absence of a formal substitution. Moreover, the court will only insist on a motion for substitution under CPLR 1021 where the defendant raises triable issues of fact as to the validity of the assignment.
Here, the record reflects a bill assigning all of Truist’s right, title, and interest to Arba under the various loan documents including the Guaranty. While Truist’s counsel previously stated in a letter to the Court that they would file a motion seeking formal substitution, the Court sees no reason to prevent Truist from pursuing the action on behalf of Arba, as expressly permitted by CPLR 1018.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).