AJH NY Realty LLC v. Broker Success LLC
This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 33786(U) (AJH NY Realty LLC v. Broker Success LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
AJH NY Realty LLC v Broker Success LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 33786(U) October 23, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 653202/2024 Judge: Joel M. Cohen Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 653202/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 03M ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
AJH NY REALTY LLC,4 WHAT ITS WORTH INC INDEX NO. 653202/2024
Plaintiffs, MOTION DATE 06/25/2024 - V - MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 BROKER SUCCESS LLC, PAUL REISNER,
Defendants. DECISION+ ORDER ON MOTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
HON. JOEL M. COHEN:
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 15 were read on this motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs AJH NY Realty, LLC ("AJH") and 4 WHAT IT'S WORTH, INC. ("4W"
(collectively, "Plaintiffs") seek summary judgment in lieu of complaint under CPLR 3213, based
on three Promissory Notes, dated August 12, 2020 (the "First Note"), December 15, 2020
("Second Note") and December 23, 2020 ("Third Note"), entered with Defendant Broker
Success, LLC ("Brokerage"), and based on a guaranty by Defendant Paul Reisner ("Reisner",
and collectively with Brokerage, "Defendants") on the First Note. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion
is granted.
Pursuant to CPLR 3213, a party may commence an action by motion for summary
judgment in lieu of complaint when the action is "based upon an instrument for the payment of
money only or upon any judgment" ( Oak Rock Fin., LLC v Rodriguez, 148 AD3d 1036, 1039 [2d
Dept 2017]). An "instrument for the payment of money only" is one that "requires the
defendant to make a certain payment or payments and nothing else" (Seaman-Andwall Corp. v
Wright Mach. Corp., 31 AD2d 136, 137 [1st Dept 1968]; Weissman v Sinorm Deli, Inc., 88
653202/2024 AJH NY REAL TY LLC ET AL vs. BROKER SUCCESS LLC ET AL Page 1 of4 Motion No. 001
[* 1] 1 of 4 INDEX NO. 653202/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2024
NY2d 437,444 [1996]). "It is well settled that a promissory note, as an instrument for the
payment of money only, is entitled to the expedited procedure detailed in CPLR 3213" (R-H-D
Const. Corp. v Miller, 222 AD2d 802, 803 [3d Dept 1995]). Likewise, generally a "guarantee
qualifies as an 'instrument for the payment of money only' under CPLR 3213" (Torres &
Leonard, P.C. v Select Professional Realties, Ltd., 118 AD2d 467,468 [1st Dept 1986]; State
Bank of India, New York Branch v Patel, 167 AD2d 242, 243 [1st Dept 1990]). "Once the
plaintiff submits evidence establishing its prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the
defendant to submit evidence establishing the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to a
bona fide defense" (Griffon V LLC v 11 East 36th, LLC, 90 AD3d 705, 707 [2d Dept 2011]).
Here, Plaintiffs have established a prima facie case for relief by demonstrating that
Brokerage executed the First Promissory Note in the principal amount of $500,000.00 to AJH
(NYSCEF 5), guaranteed by Reisner (NYSCEF 6); Reisner executed the Second Promissory
Note in the principal amount of $40,000.00 to 4W (NYSCEF 8); Reisner executed the Third
Promissory Note in the principal amount of $215,000.00 to AJH (NYSCEF 9); and that
Defendants failed to repay the Notes in accordance with their terms (see NYSCEF 4, Affirmation
of Kyle Soladay ["Soladay Affirm"]). Further, Plaintiffs submitted Affirmations of Service
demonstrating service of the motion and supporting papers upon Defendants (NYSCEF 14, 15).
As to the First Note, the submitted evidence indicates that the first installment of
$400,000.00 was due on or before August 12, 2022 (NYSCEF 5 i11a) and that ten percent (10%)
per annum on the $500,000 Note began accruing five days after the Brokerage defaulted in the
First Installment, or August 17, 2022 (NYSCEF 5 ,i,i3, 8a) (Soladay Affirm ,i,i5-10). The
Guaranty likewise provides that "[t]he Guarantor hereby irrevocably and unconditionally
guarantees to the Lender the prompt payment when due" of the First Note (NYSCEF 6iJ I).
653202/2024 AJH NY REAL TY LLC ET AL vs. BROKER SUCCESS LLC ET AL Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 001
[* 2] 2 of 4 INDEX NO. 653202/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2024
As to the Second Note, the submitted evidence indicates that the entire amount of
$40,000.00 was due on or before January 15, 2021 (NYSCEF 8 ,JI) and that upon the occurrence
of a default, the entire outstanding principal balance of the Note, including interest at ten percent
(10%) per annum, was due and payable (NYSCEF 8 ,i,is, 7) (Soladay Affirm ,i,i12-17).
As the Third Note, the submitted evidence indicates that the principal of $215,000.00 was
due on or before June 30, 2022, and interest on the principal amount at the rate of ten percent
(10%) began accruing five days after Reisner defaulted on the note or, or July 6, 2022 (NYSCEF
9 ,i,i1, 2, 3(e)(a)) (Soladay Affirm ,i,iI0-24).
Finally, each of the three Notes provide that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover its attorney
fees and costs associated with the bringing of this action (see NYSCEF s,i 9, NYSCEF 8,J 6;
NYSCEF 9,J 3(e)(f)). Plaintiffs have submitted the Affirmation of Jared Louzon, and
accompanying timesheet (NYSCEF 11) demonstrating that Plaintiffs have incurred $3,600.00 in
legal fees in enforcing the Notes (NYSCEF 10 ["Louzon Affirm"] i]3).
Defendants have not filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion, and therefore fail to raise a
fact issue to warrant further proceedings.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint is
GRANTED; it is further
ORDERED that upon submission of a judgment in the appropriate form, the Clerk of the
Court enter judgment as follows:
1) On the First Note, judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff AJH against Defendants
Brokerage and Reisner, jointly and severally, in the principal amount of $500,000.00,
653202/2024 AJH NY REAL TY LLC ET AL vs. BROKER SUCCESS LLC ET AL Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 001
[* 3] 3 of 4 INDEX NO. 653202/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2024
along with accrued and unpaid interest at the contractual rate of ten percent (10%)
running from August 17, 2022 until entry of judgment;
2) On the Second Note, judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff 4W against
Defendant Reisner in the principal amount of $40,000.00, along with accrued and unpaid
interest at the contractual rate of ten percent (10%) running from January 15, 2021 until
entry of judgment;
3) On the Third Note,judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff AJH against Defendant
Reisner in the principal amount of $215,000.00, along with accrued and unpaid interest at
the contractual rate of ten percent (10%) running from July 6, 2022, until entry of
judgment;
plus attorney's fees and expenses of $3,600.00, together with costs and disbursements to be
taxed by the Clerk upon submission of an appropriate bill of costs; it is further
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2024 NY Slip Op 33786(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ajh-ny-realty-llc-v-broker-success-llc-nysupctnewyork-2024.