Opinion
1110 CA 21-00218
01-28-2022
NORTHWOODS, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Sherry HALE, Defendant-Appellant.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JENNIFER A. HURLEY, LLP, BUFFALO (JENNIFER A. HURLEY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. WOODS OVIATT GILMAN LLP, BUFFALO (ANDREA K. DILUGLIO OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JENNIFER A. HURLEY, LLP, BUFFALO (JENNIFER A. HURLEY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
WOODS OVIATT GILMAN LLP, BUFFALO (ANDREA K. DILUGLIO OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, NEMOYER, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: By motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, plaintiff commenced this action to recover on guarantees executed by defendant, a member of two limited liability companies that leased commercial property from plaintiff. We reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court erred in granting the motion. Plaintiff met its initial burden by submitting the guarantees, the underlying leases, and evidence of nonpayment (see Birjukow v. Niagara Coating Servs., Inc. , 165 A.D.3d 1586, 1587, 85 N.Y.S.3d 643 [4th Dept. 2018] ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Deering , 134 A.D.3d 1468, 1469, 23 N.Y.S.3d 767 [4th Dept. 2015] ). In opposition, defendant failed " ‘to establish, by admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue [of fact] with respect to a bona fide defense’ " ( Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A., "Rabobank Intl.," N.Y. Branch v. Navarro , 25 N.Y.3d 485, 492, 15 N.Y.S.3d 277, 36 N.E.3d 80 [2015] ; see Birjukow , 165 A.D.3d at 1587, 85 N.Y.S.3d 643 ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the guarantees are " ‘absolute and unconditional’ " inasmuch as they "contain language obligating the guarantor to payment without recourse to any defenses or counterclaims" ( Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A., "Rabobank Intl.," N.Y. Branch , 25 N.Y.3d at 493, 15 N.Y.S.3d 277, 36 N.E.3d 80 ).
Defendant's contention that the subject guarantees are not "instrument[s] for the payment of money only" ( CPLR 3213 ) is not properly before us because defendant raised it for the first time in her reply brief (see Scheer v. Elam Sand & Gravel Corp. , 177 A.D.3d 1290, 1292, 112 N.Y.S.3d 397 [4th Dept. 2019] ).