Opinion
February 6, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Palella, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondent Suburban Ventures, Inc.
A review of the record reveals that certified copies of the mortgage in favor of the defendant Suburban Ventures, Inc., and the assignment of the mortgage in favor of the defendant Garber were admitted in evidence without objection by the defendant Berner. In the absence of a timely objection, the documents offered are presumed to have been unobjectionable, and any alleged error in their admission is deemed to have been waived (see, Horton v Smith, 51 N.Y.2d 798, 799; Matter of Giacalone, 143 A.D.2d 749; Sanchez v Kato, Inc., 115 A.D.2d 646; Rubio v Reilly, 44 A.D.2d 592; CPLR 4017, 5501 [a] [3]).
In any event, even if the claim of error with regard to the admission of the mortgage and assignment had been preserved for our review, we would have found that the evidence submitted at the hearing was sufficient to establish the validity of the prior debts owed to the defendants Suburban Ventures, Inc., and Garber so as to sustain the priorities set forth in the order under review (see, Keahon v Spinelli, 135 A.D.2d 503; Snyder v Potter, 134 A.D.2d 664; Isaacson v Karpe, 84 A.D.2d 868). Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.