Marisol Holdings LLC v. Imagine Airport Ventures, LLC

2024 NY Slip Op 05056

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: October 15, 2024
• Docket: Index No. 654908/19 Appeal No. 2795 Case No. 2023-04621
• Status: Published

Opinion

Marisol Holdings LLC v Imagine Airport Ventures, LLC (2024 NY Slip Op 05056)

Marisol Holdings LLC v Imagine Airport Ventures, LLC

2024 NY Slip Op 05056

Decided on October 15, 2024

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 and Entered: October 15, 2024
Before: Singh, J.P., Gesmer, González, Mendez, Rodriguez, JJ.

Index No. 654908/19 Appeal No. 2795 Case No. 2023-04621

[*1]Marisol Holdings LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Imagine Airport Ventures, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Furgang & Adwar, LLP, New York (Armando Llorens of counsel), for appellant.

Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP, New York (Matthew R. Yogg of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis L. Nock, J.), entered November 22, 2022, granting judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $610,357.55, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On its motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment by showing the "existence of a promissory note, executed by the defendant, containing an unequivocal and unconditional obligation to repay, and the failure by the defendant to pay in accordance with the note's terms" (Roopchand v Mohammed, 154 AD3d 986, 987 [2d Dept 2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Defendants opposed with a one paragraph affidavit that stated plaintiff intended to discontinue the business, apparently a reference to Spa Here LLC, the business which was to be financed by the funds loaned under the note. This is not a cognizable defense.

Defendants primarily rely on materials submitted on their motion to vacate the judgment made 11 months after entry. None of the arguments raised there or the materials, which do not even include the order on that motion, or plaintiff's opposition, are properly considered on this appeal.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: October 15, 2024