VNB NEW YORK LLC v. YELLOW RAVEN CAB CORP (2026)

Zeichner Ellman & Krause LLP, New York (Bruce S. Goodman of counsel), for appellant.

Arcady Tochin, respondent pro se.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas W. Moyne, J.), entered on or about January 7, 2026, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its verified complaint and dismissing defendants' counterclaims, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment through the note executed by defendant Yellow Raven Cab Corp. (the Borrower), the guaranty executed by defendant Arcady Tochin, the extension agreement that incorporated the terms of the note but extended its maturity date, and evidence establishing the Borrower's default (see BBM3, LLC v. Vosotas, 216 AD3d 403, 403 [1st Dept 2023] ).  VNB's failure to submit a copy of the Extension Agreement signed by its representative does not raise a triable issue of fact under the circumstances, as the objective evidence established both parties' intent to be bound by its terms (see Flores v Lower E. Side Serv. Ctr., Inc., 4 NY3d 363,369 [2005] ).  Moreover, Tochin ratified the Note by signing multiple amendments and extensions, particularly during the COVID–19 pandemic, precluding any dispute regarding its authenticity or enforceability (see Clover Private Credit Opportunities Origination (Levered) II, L.P. v Sanberg, 227 AD3d 540, 540 [1st Dept 2024];  YH Lex Estates LLC v. HFZ Capital Group LLC, 203 AD3d 417, 417–418 [1st Dept 2022] ).

VNB's acceptance of reduced payments and its modification of payment schedules did not constitute an unequivocal waiver of its right to full repayment of the loan by the maturity date in light of the Note's unambiguous no-waiver clause and similar clauses in the other relevant documents (see Whitecap [U.S.] Fund, I, LP v Siemens First Capital Commercial Fin. LLC, 121 AD3d 584, 593 [1st Dept 2014];  see also EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. v ESPN, Inc., 79 AD3d 614, 618 [1st Dept 2010] ).  Moreover, Tochin was not justified in relying on any purported communications by VNB's representative regarding repayment, where the clear terms of the extension agreement established that all outstanding amounts were due by the maturity date (see id.).

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.