SANTANDER BANK v. NY BUSINESS HOLDINGS INC (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis L. Nock, J.), entered October 7, 2024, which granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on its causes of action for breach of lease and breach of guaranty, and denied defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint and to amend the answer to assert an affirmative defense sounding in forgery, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on its complaint by submitting an affidavit from its representative identifying the relevant agreements — an equipment finance agreement and guaranty dated in or about September 2016 — together with evidence of plaintiff's performance under the agreements, defendants' breach of them, and resulting damages (see Harris v. Seward Park Hous. Corp., 79 AD3d 425, 426 [1st Dept 2010] ).  In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Supreme Court also correctly denied defendants' cross-motion.  Although leave to amend under CPLR 3025(b) is to be freely given, the proposed amendment, which sought leave to add an affirmative defense sounding in forgery, was patently devoid of merit (see MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 AD3d 499, 499 [1st Dept 2010] ).  Although defendants alleged that the equipment finance agreement and guaranty were forgeries, they did not deny making payments under the agreement for nearly a year, and the proposed defense offered no allegations explaining why defendants made those payments if no equipment was received.  Defendants also did not explain why, if the agreement and guaranty were forged, further payments were made in May and July 2018 after defendant guarantor Isaiah Moutrie filed reports with the Nassau County Police Department and Federal Trade Commission in April and May 2018 alleging that he was the victim of identity theft.  In addition, defendants do not otherwise challenge their payment history or raise arguments with respect to the amounts due.  For the same reasons, the allegations of forgery failed to create a question of fact for trial or a basis for dismissal of the action.