QUEENS SYNDICATE COMPANY v. DANIAROV (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover on a personal guaranty, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leonard Livote, J.), entered December 14, 2023.  The order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the issue of liability and dismissing the seventh affirmative defense, asserting equitable estoppel.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant, Dmitri Daniarov, to recover certain amounts owed under a commercial lease pursuant to a guaranty signed by the defendant.  The defendant interposed an answer containing various affirmative defenses, including equitable estoppel.  The plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability and dismissing the seventh affirmative defense, asserting equitable estoppel.  In an order entered December 14, 2023, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted those branches of the motion.

“The absolute and unconditional guaranty in this case was separate and distinct from the underlying lease and constituted an independent agreement that imposed direct and primary obligations of payment on the defendant” (Pitsy, LLC v. Rindenow, 165 A.D.3d 1300, 1301, 87 N.Y.S.3d 588;  see Hyman v. Golio, 134 A.D.3d 992, 992, 24 N.Y.S.3d 84).  Such guaranties “have been consistently upheld by New York courts” (Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen–Boerenleenbank, B.A., “Rabobank Intl.,” N.Y. Branch v. Navarro, 25 N.Y.3d 485, 493, 15 N.Y.S.3d 277, 36 N.E.3d 80).

Here, the plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by proving the existence of the unconditional guaranty and the defendant's failure to perform under the guaranty (see 82–90 Broadway Realty Corp. v. New York Supermarket, Inc., 154 A.D.3d 797, 798, 62 N.Y.S.3d 186;  see also Pitsy, LLC v. Rindenow, 165 A.D.3d at 1301, 87 N.Y.S.3d 588;  United Rentals [N. Am.], Inc. v. Iron Age Tool Corp., 150 A.D.3d 1304, 1306, 57 N.Y.S.3d 177).  In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense (see United Rentals [N. Am.], Inc. v. Iron Age Tool Corp., 150 A.D.3d at 1306, 57 N.Y.S.3d 177).

The defendant's contention that an award of summary judgment was premature because of outstanding disclosure is without merit, because he failed to demonstrate that “discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant” (Leak v. Hybrid Cars, Ltd., 132 A.D.3d 958, 959, 19 N.Y.S.3d 534 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Quintanilla v. Mark, 210 A.D.3d 713, 714, 177 N.Y.S.3d 687).  “The mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to deny the motion” (Leak v. Hybrid Cars, Ltd., 132 A.D.3d at 959, 19 N.Y.S.3d 534 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Quintanilla v. Mark, 210 A.D.3d at 715, 177 N.Y.S.3d 687).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the issue of liability and dismissing the seventh affirmative defense, asserting equitable estoppel.

MILLER, J.P., DOWLING, VENTURA and GOLIA, JJ., concur.