SUTTONGATE HOLDINGS LIMITED v. LACONM MANAGEMENT (2021)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered September 25, 2019, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, in plaintiff's favor against defendant Andrawos, awarding plaintiff attorneys' fees, directing defendant (Andrawos) to comply with the loan agreement's requirement to secure plaintiff's loan through the establishment and registration of mortgages on certain properties, and superseding, replacing and vacating an order and judgment, same court (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered December 21, 2018, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In a prior appeal, this Court reinstated the dismissed first four causes of action, upholding the validity of the loan agreement and, as relevant herein, defendant's accompanying personal guarantee (Suttongate Holdings Ltd. v. Laconm Mgt. N.V., 173 A.D.3d 618, 106 N.Y.S.3d 1 [1st Dept. 2019], lv dismissed 35 N.Y.3d 983, 125 N.Y.S.3d 73, 148 N.E.3d 537 [2020]).  On remittitur, the trial court held the necessary “further proceedings” (see CPLR 5524[b]), and, in the ensuing judgment, enforced defendant's contractual commitment to plaintiff, thereby obeying the mandate of this Court precisely (see Glassman v. ProHealth Ambulatory Surgery Ctr., Inc., 96 A.D.3d 799, 800, 946 N.Y.S.2d 602 [2d Dept. 2012], appeal dismissed 19 N.Y.3d 1083, 955 N.Y.S.2d 544, 979 N.E.2d 804 [2012]).  Enforcement of the contractual commitment necessarily included reinstating the requirement that defendant obtain first mortgages on the properties securing the loan.

As the prevailing party, plaintiff was properly awarded attorneys' fees pursuant to the loan agreement and his guarantee (see Matter of Wiederhorn v. Merkin, 98 A.D.3d 859, 863, 952 N.Y.S.2d 478 [1st Dept. 2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 855, 2012 WL 6582317 [2012]).

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.