Opinion
2015-05-07
HRC FUND III POOLING DOMESTIC, LLC, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. TAMACH REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C., Miami, FL (Jennifer Olmedo–Rodriguez of the bar of the State of Florida, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellants. Polsinelli P.C., New York (Jason A. Nagi of counsel), for respondent.
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C., Miami, FL (Jennifer Olmedo–Rodriguez of the bar of the State of Florida, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellants. Polsinelli P.C., New York (Jason A. Nagi of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered October 17, 2013, awarding plaintiff $6,845,249.11, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Defendants signed a guaranty in connection with a $6 million mezzanine loan pursuant to which they waived any defenses or objections to their payment obligations ( see International Plaza Assoc., L.P. v. Lacher, 104 A.D.3d 578, 579, 961 N.Y.S.2d 427 [1st Dept.2013]; Reliance Constr. Ltd. v. Kennelly, 70 A.D.3d 418, 419, 893 N.Y.S.2d 548 [1st Dept.2010], lv. dismissed 15 N.Y.3d 848, 909 N.Y.S.2d 19, 935 N.E.2d 812 [2010]; Sterling Natl. Bank v. Biaggi, 47 A.D.3d 436, 849 N.Y.S.2d 521 [1st Dept.2008] ). Contrary to defendants' argument, the subsequent forbearance agreement, to which defendants were not parties, and which specifically stated that they were not being released by it, did not extinguish their payment obligations under the guaranty.
With respect to the amount owed under the guaranty, defendants offer no evidence to rebut the determination that the value of certain condominium units has already been credited. Accordingly, there is no basis upon which to disturb that determination or to find that defendants are also entitled to credit for deposits that may have been made on those units ( see Matter of Silverstein v. Goodman, 113 A.D.3d 539, 979 N.Y.S.2d 308 [1st Dept.2014] ).