Sun Convenient, Inc. v. Sarasamir Corp.

• Decision Date: 17 December 2014
• Docket Number: 2014-01440
• Citation: 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 08827,999 N.Y.S.2d 432,123 A.D.3d 906
• Parties: SUN CONVENIENT, INC., appellant, v. SARASAMIR CORP., respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

123 A.D.3d 906
999 N.Y.S.2d 432
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 08827

SUN CONVENIENT, INC., appellant
v.
SARASAMIR CORP., respondent.

2014-01440

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

Dec. 17, 2014.

999 N.Y.S.2d 433

Edelstein & Grossman, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan I. Edelstein of counsel), for appellant.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.

Opinion

123 A.D.3d 906

In an action, inter alia, to recover on two promissory notes, commenced by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), entered July 24, 2013, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213 is granted.

999 N.Y.S.2d 434

“Pursuant to CPLR 3213, a party may obtain accelerated relief by moving for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, provided that the action is ‘based upon an instrument for the payment of money only or upon any judgment’ ” (Von Fricken v. Schaefer, 118 A.D.3d 869, 870, 988 N.Y.S.2d 254, quoting CPLR 3213 ; see

123 A.D.3d 907

Schulz v. Barrows, 94 N.Y.2d 624, 627–628, 709 N.Y.S.2d 148, 730 N.E.2d 946 ). “ ‘A promissory note is an instrument for the payment of money only, provided that it contains an unconditional promise by the borrower to pay the lender over a stated period of time’ ” (Von Fricken v. Schaefer, 118 A.D.3d at 870, 988 N.Y.S.2d 254, quoting Lugli v. Johnston, 78 A.D.3d 1133, 1134, 912 N.Y.S.2d 108 ; see Weissman v. Sinorm Deli, 88 N.Y.2d 437, 444, 646 N.Y.S.2d 308, 669 N.E.2d 242 ; Ro & Ke, Inc. v. Stevens, 61 A.D.3d 953, 953, 878 N.Y.S.2d 394 ; Stallone v. Rostek, 27 A.D.3d 449, 450, 809 N.Y.S.2d 920 ). “An instrument does not qualify for accelerated relief under CPLR 3213 ‘if outside proof is needed, other than simple proof of nonpayment or a similar de minimis deviation from the face of the document’ ” (Von Fricken v. Schaefer, 118 A.D.3d at 870, 988 N.Y.S.2d 254, quoting Weissman v. Sinorm Deli, 88 N.Y.2d at 444, 646 N.Y.S.2d 308, 669 N.E.2d 242 ; see Lugli v. Johnston, 78 A.D.3d at 1134, 912 N.Y.S.2d 108 ; Ro & Ke, Inc. v. Stevens, 61...