Karma Props. LLC v. Lilok, Inc.

2020 NY Slip Op 3595, 184 A.D.3d 515, 124 N.Y.S.3d 544
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 25, 2020
Docket11692 651385/17
StatusPublished

This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 3595 (Karma Props. LLC v. Lilok, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Karma Props. LLC v. Lilok, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 3595, 184 A.D.3d 515, 124 N.Y.S.3d 544 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

Karma Props. LLC v Lilok, Inc. (2020 NY Slip Op 03595)
Karma Props. LLC v Lilok, Inc.
2020 NY Slip Op 03595
Decided on June 25, 2020
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on June 25, 2020
Friedman J.P., Richter, Gesmer, Oing, Singh, JJ.

11692 651385/17

[*1] Karma Properties LLC, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v

Lilok, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellants.


Law Office of Robert G. Leino, New York (Robert G. Leino of counsel), for appellants.

Kazlow & Kazlow, New York (Stuart L. Sanders of counsel), for

respondents.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered May 2, 2019, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although defendants allege that neither defendant principal Rogers nor anyone else on behalf of defendant tenant Lilok, Inc. signed the lease amendment, defendants made no assertions to the motion court based on the specific differences between Rogers's signature and the signature on the amendment, or the circumstances in which Lilok came to occupy suite 503 and agreed to pay the higher rent sufficient to raise a question of fact. "Something more than a bald assertion of forgery is required to create an issue of fact contesting the authenticity of a signature" (Banco Popular N. Am. v Victory Taxi Mgt., 1 NY3d 381, 384 [2004]). Accordingly, since the guaranty executed with the original lease applied to all renewals and extensions, summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs was proper (see 1424 Millstone Rd., LLC v James B. Fairchild, LLC, 136 AD3d 556, 557 [1st Dept 2016]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JUNE 25, 2020

CLERK



Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Banco Popular North America v. Victory Taxi Management, Inc.
806 N.E.2d 488 (New York Court of Appeals, 2004)
1424 Millstone Road, LLC v. James B. Fairchild, LLC
136 A.D.3d 556 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 NY Slip Op 3595, 184 A.D.3d 515, 124 N.Y.S.3d 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karma-props-llc-v-lilok-inc-nyappdiv-2020.