Summary
granting summary judgment in lieu of complaint "as there is no basis to conclude that the promissory note was anything other than an instrument for the payment of money only"
Summary of this case from Pension Inv'rs 99, LLC v. Broad St. Plaza Assocs.Opinion
651878/13 16410 16409.
12-15-2015
Shia Saide LaBOEUF, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. Barry SAIDE, Defendant–Appellant.
Samuel E. Kramer, New York, for appellant. Gage Spencer & Fleming LLP, New York (William B. Fleming of counsel), for respondents.
Samuel E. Kramer, New York, for appellant.
Gage Spencer & Fleming LLP, New York (William B. Fleming of counsel), for respondents.
Opinion
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.) entered April 16, 2014, awarding plaintiffs the aggregate amount of $997,279. 24, pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered February 28, 2014, which granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously affirmed. Appeal from the aforesaid order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.
Plaintiffs loaned defendant $800,000 in August 2009, and the loan was memorialized by a promissory note. It is undisputed that defendant never paid on the note, and so, as permitted under CPLR 3213, plaintiffs commenced this action with a summons and notice of motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. Supreme Court properly granted the motion, as there is no basis to conclude that the promissory note was anything other than an instrument for the payment of money only (see Warburg, Pincus Equity Partners, L.P. v. O'Neill, 11 A.D.3d 327, 783 N.Y.S.2d 354 1st Dept.2004 ). The existence of security for the loan does not alter the essential character of the note (see Solanki v. Pandya, 269 A.D.2d 189, 702 N.Y.S.2d 297 1st Dept.2000 ).
We have considered defendant's other arguments and find them unavailing.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., ANDRIAS, GISCHE, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.