MT ARLINGTON BH INVESTORS v. MT ARLINGTON EQUITY INVESTORS LLC (2026)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered December 8, 2025, in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Mt. Arlington Equity Investors LLC in the amount of $2,759,305.70 and against defendant Irving Langer in the amount of $1,620,205.48, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about July 25, 2025, which denied defendants' motion to renew plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.  Appeal from aforementioned order, unanimously dismissed, with costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Plaintiff established entitlement to summary judgment under CPLR 3213 by submitting the fully executed note and subsequent extensions, the guaranty executed by defendant Langer, and evidence establishing defendants' default under these agreements (see BBM3, LLC v. Vosotas, 216 AD3d 403, 403 [1st Dept 2023];  Bhatara v. Futterman, 122 AD3d 509, 510 [1st Dept 2014], lv dismissed 25 NY3d 1189 [2015] ).  Plaintiff was not required to submit evidence establishing that it disbursed the loan proceeds in order to obtain summary judgment (see Neo Universe Inc. v. Ito, 147 AD3d 682, 682–683 [1st Dept 2017] ).

Defendants' claim that plaintiff never disbursed the loan pursuant to the terms of the note was properly rejected, as it is based on speculation rather than documented evidence (see Carlin v. Jemal, 68 AD3d 655, 656 [1st Dept 2009];  see also Ehrlich v American Moninger Greenhouse Mfg. Corp., 26 N.Y.2d 255, 259 [1970] ).  Moreover, the note itself provides that defendants promised to pay plaintiff $1,500,000 “for value received,” which undermines defendants' claim that the loan was never disbursed (see Navon v Zackson, 191 AD3d 578, 578 [1st Dept 2021] ).

Defendants' motion to renew was properly denied, as they failed to substantiate their claim that they were denied access to the purported new evidence (see Rodriguez v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 211 AD3d 548, 548 [1st Dept 2022] ).  In any event, the evidence would not have changed the motion court's prior decision rejecting defendants' lack of consideration defense (see Sarfati v. Palazzolo, 142 AD3d 877, 877–878 [1st Dept 2016] ).