The motion court correctly determined that respondent had failed to perfect a security interest in the apartment because, while its security agreement and financing statement correctly describe the "stock" as a certain number of shares of a certain residential cooperative, those documents misdescribed the "apartment" to which such shares were allocated as being located in a different building and it cannot be said that a misdescription of this kind reasonably identified the collateral (UCC 9-110; cf., Cantrade Private Bank Lausanne v. Torresy, 876 F. Supp. 564, 574). We also agree with the IAS Court that respondent waived its lack of capacity argument by failing to include such ground for dismissal in its responsive pleading or in its initial motion to dismiss (CPLR 3211 [a] [3]; [e]). We have considered respondent's other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.