Opinion
2013-05-2
Russ & Russ, P.C., Massapequa (Jay Edmond Russ of counsel), for appellant. Dickstein Shapiro LLP, New York (Jeffrey A. Mitchell and Don Abraham of counsel), for respondent.
Russ & Russ, P.C., Massapequa (Jay Edmond Russ of counsel), for appellant. Dickstein Shapiro LLP, New York (Jeffrey A. Mitchell and Don Abraham of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered October 19, 2012, awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $192,584.93 plus interest and costs, and bringing up for review an *868order, same court and Justice, entered October 11, 2012, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff met its prima facie burden of showing that it was entitled to recover the sums due to it under the unconditional personal guaranty, which defendant admits he executed, by proffering the instrument, invoices reflecting that defendant's company owed $192,584.93 to plaintiff, and the affidavit of plaintiff's vice president attesting to the default ( see Weissman v. Sinorm Deli, 88 N.Y.2d 437, 443–444, 646 N.Y.S.2d 308, 669 N.E.2d 242 [1996];Bank of Am., N.A. v. Solow, 59 A.D.3d 304, 874 N.Y.S.2d 48 [1st Dept. 2009],lv. dismissed12 N.Y.3d 877, 883 N.Y.S.2d 172, 910 N.E.2d 1001 [2009] ).
In opposition, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The guaranty is supported by past consideration that is clearly and unambiguously expressed in the writing ( seeGeneral Obligations Law § 5–1105; Nachem v. Property Mkts. Group, Inc., 82 A.D.3d 573, 574, 918 N.Y.S.2d 490 [1st Dept. 2011] ). Moreover, the invoices submitted by plaintiff clearly demonstrate that they relate to the subject guaranty, and they are not contradicted by defendant's submission of irrelevant documents relating to separate transactions, unrelated to the guaranty.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.