SUPERIOR AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING INC v. RUSSO (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover on a guaranty, commenced by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lisa A. Cairo, J.), dated December 19, 2024.  The judgment, upon an order of the same court entered December 5, 2024, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the principal sum of $204,447.49.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover on the defendant's guaranty of a settlement agreement by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.  In support of the motion, the plaintiff submitted the settlement agreement, the guaranty executed by the defendant, which provides that the defendant “guarantees performance ․ of each and every term and condition of the foregoing Settlement Agreement,” and an affidavit of the plaintiff's principal, who averred that the settlement agreement arose from a dispute between the plaintiff, an HVAC subcontrator for nonparty 241–15 Northern, LLC (hereinafter 241–15 Northern), and 241–15 Northern over amounts due and owing to the plaintiff for a construction project.  The defendant is a principal of 241–15 Northern, who personally guaranteed 241–15 Northern's payments pursuant to the settlement agreement.  241–15 Northern defaulted on its payments under the settlement agreement and the defendant defaulted on the guaranty.  The plaintiff's principal averred that $204,447.49 remained due and owing pursuant to the settlement agreement.

Pursuant to CPLR 3213 “[w]hen an action is based upon an instrument for the payment of money only ․ the plaintiff may serve with the summons a notice of motion for summary judgment and the supporting papers in lieu of a complaint” (see Maksoud v. Iskhakov, 187 AD3d 1167, 1168).  “[O]n a motion for summary judgment to enforce a written guaranty, all that the creditor need prove is an absolute and unconditional guaranty, the underlying debt, and the guarantor's failure to perform under the guaranty” (Kwok Ching Cheung v. Sunrise Plaza, LLC, 237 AD3d 799, 801 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Santander Bank, N.A. v Chef's Orchid–The Grille, Inc., 246 AD3d 978, 980;  Maksoud v. Iskhakov, 187 AD3d at 1168).  “A guaranty is a promise to fulfill the obligations of another party, and a guarantor is [therefore] only liable upon the noncompliance of the principal obligor” (Kwok Ching Cheung v. Sunrise Plaza, LLC, 237 AD3d at 801 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen–Boerenleenbank, B.A., “Rabobank Intl.,” N.Y. Branch v Navarro, 25 NY3d 485, 492–495).  “Guaranties that contain language obligating the guarantor to payment without recourse to any defenses or counterclaims, i.e., guaranties that are ‘absolute and unconditional,’ have been consistently upheld by New York courts” (Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen–Boerenleenbank, B.A., “Rabobank Intl.,” N.Y. Branch v Navarro, 25 NY3d at 493;  see Kwok Ching Cheung v. Sunrise Plaza, LLC, 237 AD3d at 801).  “Once the plaintiff submits evidence establishing its prima facie case on a cause of action to recover on either a note or a guaranty, the burden then shifts to the defendants to submit evidence establishing the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense” (Kwok Ching Cheung v. Sunrise Plaza, LLC, 237 AD3d at 801 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Griffon V, LLC v. 11 E. 36th, LLC, 90 AD3d 705, 707).

Here, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.  The plaintiff established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through its submission of the settlement agreement, which contained an unequivocal and unconditional obligation to pay, the guaranty, and the affidavit, in which the plaintiff's principal asserted that the defendant failed to pay in accordance with the terms in those instruments (see Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen–Boerenleenbank, B.A., “Rabobank Intl.,” N.Y. Branch v Navarro, 25 NY3d at 493;  Kwok Ching Cheung v. Sunrise Plaza, LLC, 237 AD3d at 801).  In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Branch Banking & Trust Co. v Myrthil, 208 AD3d 445, 446;  Griffon V, LLC v. 11 E. 36th, LLC, 90 AD3d at 707).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the principal sum of $204,447.49.

DILLON, J.P., FORD, VOUTSINAS and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.