Opinion
11692 Index 651385/17
06-25-2020
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.
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.
Friedman J.P., Richter, Gesmer, Oing, Singh, JJ.
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 N.Y.3d 381, 384, 774 N.Y.S.2d 480, 806 N.E.2d 488 [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 A.D.3d 556, 557, 25 N.Y.S.3d 183 [1st Dept. 2016] ).