Court Opinion

ID: 9958750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:10:45.959898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:39.514872
License: Public Domain

Panasia Estate Inc. v Glazer
               2024 NY Slip Op 31070(U)
                     March 29, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 150764/2023
                 Judge: Mary V. Rosado
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 150764/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25                                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:            HON. MARY V. ROSADO                                              PART                             33M
                                                                                     Justice
            ------------------------                     ,-----------------X
                                                                                                 INDEX NO.         150764/2023
             PANASIA ESTATE INC.,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE       01/25/2023
                                                          Plaintiff,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.        001
                                                 - V -

             ANDREW GLAZER, DANIEL GLAZER                                                          DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                          MOTION
                                                          Defendant.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18,
            19,20,21,22,23,24
            were read on this motion to/for                                  JUDGMENT - SUMMARY IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT.

                      Upon the foregoing documents, and after oral argument which took place on October 10,

            2023 with Thomas Sottile, Esq. appearing for Plaintiff Panasia Estate Inc. ("Plaintiff') and John

            M. Bendele IV, Esq. appearing for Defendants Andrew Glazer and Daniel Glazer (together

            "Defendants"), Plaintiff's motion for an order (1) granting summmy judgment against Defendants

            and in favor of Plaintiff as to liability on Plaintiff's cause of action for breach of guaranty; (2)

            granting Plaintiff a money judgment against Defendants jointly and severally for rent due and

            owing under the Lease Agreement and Personal Guaranty; (3) granting Plaintiff a money judgment

            against Defendants jointly and severally for legal fees incurred by Plaintiff in connection with prior

            litigations against tenant non-Party Shadowbox Holdings LLC ("Tenant") for possession of the

            lower level and a portion of the ground floor of 28 West 20 th Street, New York, New York (the

            "Premises") and Tenant's bankruptcy; and (4) setting this matter down for an inquest on damages,

            fees, attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements of this action, is denied.

             150764/2023 PANASIA ESTATE INC., vs. GLAZER, ANDREW ET AL                                              Page 1 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 6
[* 1]
                                                                                               INDEX NO. 150764/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                   I.        Background and Procedural History

                   Plaintiff is the current owner of the Premises (NYSCEF Doc. 4 at 14). Plaintiff and Tenant

            entered into a lease agreement dated September 25, 2014 (the "Lease") through which Plaintiff

            leased the Premises to Tenant (NYSCEF Doc. 5). Concurrent with Tenant's execution of the Lease,

            Defendants executed a limited guaranty dated September 25, 2014 (the "Guaranty"), through

            which they jointly and severally guaranteed Tenant's obligations under the Lease (NYSCEF Doc.

            6). The Guaranty provides, inter alia, that Defendants "absolutely, irrevocably and

            unconditionally, guarantee[] to Owner" all sums payable under the Lease (NYSCEF Doc. 6 at 12).

            Further, paragraph 10 of the Lease states that Defendants "shall pay all of Owner's reasonable

            costs and expenses .. .in enforcing this Guaranty" (NYSCEF Doc. 6 at 110).

                   Tenant subsequently defaulted on its rent obligations under the terms of the Lease

            (NYSCEF Doc. 4 at 1 6). While Defendants contend that Tenants default occurred "solely as a

            result of the COVID-19 related closure orders" between March 7, 2020 and June 30, 2021

            (NYSCEF Doc. 18 at 3), Plaintiff contends that Tenant's defaults pre-date the COVID-19

            Pandemic and were "wholly umelated to payment issues and the COVID-19 Pandemic" (NYSCEF

            Doc. 23 at 7).

                   On January 25, 2023 Plaintiff commenced the instant motion for summary judgment

            against Defendants in lieu of filing a complaint (NYSCEF Doc. 2). In support of its motion,

            Plaintiff contends that it has met its prima facie burden on summary judgment by proving the

            existence of the guaranty, the underlying monthly rent arrears, and Defendants failure to perform

            under the Guaranty (NYSCEF Doc. 3 at 11). Plaintiff further argues that N.Y., Code§ 22- 1005,

            which prohibits the enforcement of personal guaranties of New York City commercial leases

            involving COVID-19 impacted tenants, should not limit Plaintiffs recovery, as Tenant's default

             150764/2023 PANASIA ESTATE INC., vs. GLAZER, ANDREW ET AL                         Page 2 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                           2 of 6
[* 2]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 150764/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            and Defendants' payment obligations were umelated to the COVID-19 Pandemic (NYSCEF Doc.

            3 at 12).

                    In opposition to Plaintiff's motion, Defendants contend that Plaintiff is not entitled to

            summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213 because the Guaranty is not an unconditional promise

            to pay a sum certain, and because material questions of fact remain regarding damages, and

            whether N.Y., Code§ 22- 1005 precludes Plaintiff from recovering under the Guaranty (NYSCEF

            Doc. 18).

                    II.     Discussion

                           a. Standard

                    Summary judgment is a drastic remedy, to be granted only where the moving party has

            tendered sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact." (Vega v

            Restani Const. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012]). The moving party's "burden is a heavy one and

            on a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-

            moving party." (Jacobsen v New York City Health and Hasps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824, 833 [2014]).

            Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce

            evidentiary proof, in admissible form, sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact

            which require a trial. (See e.g., Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980];

            Pemberton v New York City Tr. Auth., 304 AD2d 340, 342 [1st Dept 2003]). Mere conclusions of

            law or fact are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see Banco Popular North

            Am. v Victory Taxi Mgt., Inc., 1 NY3d 381 [2004]).

                                  [The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank]

             150764/2023 PANASIA ESTATE INC., vs. GLAZER, ANDREW ET AL                               Page 3 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                           3 of 6
[* 3]
                                                                                               INDEX NO. 150764/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                           b. Plaintiffs Claims are Entitled to Consideration Under CPLR 3123

                   Pursuant to CPLR 3213, "[w]hen an action is based upon an instrument for the payment of

            money only or upon any judgment, the plaintiff may serve with the summons a notice of motion

            for summary judgment and the supporting papers in lieu of a complaint." The purpose of CPLR

            3213 is 'to provide quick relief on documentary claims so presumptively meritorious that a formal

            complaint is superfluous, and even the delay incident upon waiting for an answer and then moving

            for summary judgment is needless"' (SpringPrince, LLC v Elie Tahari, Ltd. 173 AD3d 544 [1st

            Dept 2019] citing Weissman v Sinorm Deli, 88 NY2d 437,443 [1996]).

                   While it is well established that an unconditional guaranty is generally an instrument for

            the payment of money only (Acadia Woods Partners, LLC v Signal Lake Fund LP, 102 AD3d 522,

            523 [1st Dept 2013]), the Court of Appeals has held that a document should not be considered an

            instrument for the payment of money only "if the court must consult other materials besides the

            bare document and proof of nonpayment, or if it must make more than a de minimis deviation

            from the face of the document" (PDL Biopharma, Inc. v Wohlstadter, 147 AD3d 494, 495 [1st

            Dept 2017]; see also Weissman v Sinorm Deli, 88 NY2d 437, 444 (1996)(holding that an

            instrument is not proper for summary judgment under CPLR 3213 where "outside proof is needed,

            other than simple proof of nonpayment or a similar de minimus deviation from the face of the

            document").

                   Here, as stated previously, the Guaranty provides, inter alia, that Defendants "absolutely,

            irrevocably and unconditionally, guarantee[] to Owner" all sums payable under the Lease

            (NYSCEF Doc. 6 at ,r 2). Accordingly, the Court finds that the subject Guaranty is unconditional,

            the necessity to consult other documents relating to Plaintiffs claims is de minimis, and the

             150764/2023 PANASIA ESTATE INC., vs. GLAZER, ANDREW ET AL                          Page 4 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                          4 of 6
[* 4]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 150764/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            Guaranty should be considered an "instrument for the payment of money only" for purposes of

            CPLR 3213.

                            c.   Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied

                    To meet its primafacie burden on a motion made pursuant to CPLR 3213, a plaintiff must

            prove (1) the existence of the guaranty, (2) the underlying debt, and (3) the guarantor's failure to

            perform under the guaranty (Davimos v Halle, 35 AD3d 270, 272 [1st Dept 2006]). To oppose the

            motion once a prima facie showing is made, the defendant must present admissible evidence

            raising triable issues of material fact to preclude liability (Zuckerman v City ofNew York, 49 NY2d

            557, 562 [1980].

                    Here, Plaintiff contends that the decision of Hon. Andrew Borrok dated March 23, 2021,

            confirms that the Tenant's arrears and defaults were unrelated to the Covid pandemic (NYSCEF

            Doc. 3 at 12). However, the Affidavit of Daniel Glazer states that Tenant was forced to cease its

            operations and close all of its facilities pursuant to state and municipal government orders which

            mandated the "closure of fitness studios operating in New York City in connection with the

            COVID-19 pandemic" (NYSCEF Doc. 19 at if 6).

                    In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants have raised material questions of

            fact regarding whether the cause of Defendants default herein, and the extent to which Plaintiffs

            claims are precluded by N.Y., Code § 22- 1005, which preclude summary judgment. As such,

            Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby,

                    ORDERED that Plaintiff Panasia Estate Inc.'s motion for summary judgment is denied;

            and it is further

             150764/2023 PANASIA ESTATE INC., vs. GLAZER, ANDREW ET AL                            Page 5 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                           5 of 6
[* 5]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 150764/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                    ORDERED that the parties' moving and answering papers herein shall be deemed the

           complaint and answer in this action, respectively, pursuant to CPLR 3212; and it is further

                    ORDERED that on of before May 14, 2024 the parties are directed to submit a proposed

            Preliminary Conference Order to the Court via e-mail to SFC-Part33-Clerk@nycourts.gov. If the

           parties are unable to agree to a proposed Preliminary Conference Order, the parties are directed to

            appear for an in-person preliminary conference with the Court in room 442, 60 Centre Street, ort

            May 15, 2024 at 9:30 a.m.; and it is further

                    ORDERED that within ten (10) days of entry, counsel for Defendants Andrew Glazer and

            Daniel Glazer shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order with notice of entry upon Plaintiff

            Panasia Estate Inc. at their last known business address; and it is further

                    ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

                    This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

                    3/29/2024
                      DATE                                                    HO . MARY V. ROSADO, J.S.C.

                                     ~
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED         [ ; ] DENIED    GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                    SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN      FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □ REFERENCE

             150764/2023 PANASIA ESTATE INC., vs. GLAZER, ANDREW ET AL                             Page 6 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                           6 of 6
[* 6]