Elie Tahari Ltd, Plaintiff, v. Haim Narkis Also Known as Mark Narkis, et al., Defendants. (2026)

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Andrew Borrok, J.), entered on or about August 15, 2025, deemed appeal from the judgment, same court and Justice, entered November 13, 2025, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granting plaintiff Elie Tahari's motion for summary judgment on his breach of contract claim against defendant Shlomo Narkis, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the judgment vacated, and the motion denied.

Supreme Court should have denied Tahari's motion for summary judgment because Narkis's affidavit, the parties' deposition testimony and the documentary evidence created a material issue of fact as to whether Tahari's $9 million transfer to him was in fact a loan (see Landa v Friedman, 222 AD3d 590, 591 [1st Dept 2023];  Polygram Holding, Inc. v Cafaro, 42 AD3d 339, 340 [1st Dept 2007] ).  In his affidavit and deposition testimony, Narkis described years of undocumented money transfers;  his scheme to avoid his tax obligations in Israel;  fabricated documents to disguise payments of past transfers;  a purported handshake agreement establishing Tahari's $9 million debt;  and Tahari's repayment of that debt under the guise of a loan.  The evidence Narkis submitted showed that “there remain questions of fact as to whether the 2007 agreement reflected a new loan to Narkis or the repayment of an old debt by Tahari” (Tahari v Narkis, 239 AD3d 470, 472 [1st Dept 2025] ).

Contrary to Supreme Court's conclusion, Narkis's affidavit was competent to raise issues of fact as to the parties' 2007 loan agreement sufficient to preclude summary judgment on Tahari's breach of contract claim.  As we have recognized, “[t]hat an affidavit is submitted by a party or other interested person does not detract from its sufficiency as competent evidence” (Miller v City of New York, 253 AD2d 394, 395 [1st Dept 1998] ).  Such is the case here.  Indeed, Narkis' affidavit provided firsthand knowledge of the transaction with Tahari.  Accordingly, it was error for Supreme Court to categorically reject Narkis' affidavit notwithstanding that the Court excluded from consideration the additional affidavit of a third party who allegedly witnessed the transaction (see Landa, 222 AD3d at 591).