Sarfati v. Palazzolo

• Decision Date: 27 September 2016
• Parties: Mark SARFATI, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Frank PALAZZOLO, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

142 A.D.3d 877

37 N.Y.S.3d 537

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06168

Mark SARFATI, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.Frank PALAZZOLO, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Sept. 27, 2016.

Hass & Gottlieb, Scarsdale (Lawrence M. Gottlieb of counsel), for appellant.

Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., Uniondale (E. Christopher Murray of counsel), for respondent.

SWEENY, J.P., MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, WEBBER, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered February 11, 2015, in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, unanimously affirmed. Order, same court and Justice, entered November 4, 2015, which, inter alia, denied defendant's motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff established prima facie the existence of the guaranty executed by defendant, the underlying debt, and defendant's failure to perform under the guaranty (see Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen–Boerenleenbank, B.A., “Rabobank Intl.,” N.Y. Branch v. Navarro, 25 N.Y.3d 485, 492, 15 N.Y.S.3d 277, 36 N.E.3d 80 [2015] ), by submitting the “Guaranty and Assignment of Loan Transactions Agreement,” the stock purchase agreement setting forth the terms of the purchase money debt obligation, and a demand letter from himself to defendant.

The guaranty and assignment agreement included an unambiguous and valid assignment of plaintiff's rights under the stock purchase agreement that demonstrates the intent of the parties to assign plaintiff's rights (see Van Damme v. Gelber, 104 A.D.3d 534, 534–35, 961 N.Y.S.2d 391 [1st Dept.2013], lv. dismissed 22 N.Y.3d 952, 977 N.Y.S.2d 181, 999 N.E.2d 545 [2013] ). Therefore, contrary to defendant's argument, no additional documentation is needed to effectuate the agreement. Moreover, the guaranty and assignment agreement does not support defendant's contention that he is entitled to a payment equal to a percentage of the purchase money debt obligation.

Defendant also failed to raise an issue of fact as to his counterclaim for repayment of what he conclusorily asserts were monthly loan payments to plaintiff (see Schwartz v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 84 A.D.3d 575, 577, 923 N.Y.S.2d 96 [1st Dept.2011] ). The record shows that those payments were principal and interest payments on the guaranty.

The “new evidence” that defendant submitted in support of his motion to renew, i.e., that the parties orally agreed to cancel the guaranty and assignment agreement, would not change the prior determination, since...