The motion court erred in finding that plaintiff failed to present a prima facie case for an order of attachment. To the contrary, the verified complaint and the submissions on the motion, when coupled with the requisite assumptions and standard of proof (see, Swiss Bank Corp. v. Eatessami, 26 A.D.2d 287, 290-91; Considar, Inc. v. Redi Corp. Establishment, 238 A.D.2d 111), sufficiently set forth and substantiated each element necessary to establish plaintiff's entitlement to the order (CPLR §§ 6212 and 6201), including plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits, defendant Andre Agapov's non-domiciliary status, and that the amount demanded by plaintiff exceeded all counterclaims against it. We also find that a substantial relationship exists between the New York property to be attached and plaintiff's claim, sufficient to support the assertion of quasi-in-rem jurisdiction (see, Banco Ambrosiano, S.p.A. v. Artoc Bank Trust Ltd., 62 N.Y.2d 65, 72-73).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.