Summary Judgment Granted To Plaintiffs Against Borrowers, Denied As To Peripheral Defendants

Posted: June 4, 2025 / Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. Butt, Joshua Wurtzel, Channing J. Turner / Categories Contracts, Summary Judgment

Summary Judgment Granted To Plaintiffs Against Borrowers, Denied As To Peripheral Defendants

On April 26, 2025, Justice Andrea Masley granted summary judgment to plaintiff banks on claims against certain borrowers, and denied relief as to peripheral defendants against whom no claims were asserted. The case is Shanghai Commercial Bank Ltd. v. New Tent, LLC, Index No. 850240/2024.

Plaintiffs sought summary judgment against defendants New Tent, LLC and Neo Image Enterprises, LLC (“Borrowers”) on plaintiffs’ claims for a declaration that Borrowers had breached a certain forbearance agreement, and directing Borrowers to transfer title of the property at issue to plaintiffs (or, in the alternative, granting foreclosure on the mortgage on the property underlying the forbearance agreement and on certain of Borrowers’ personal property.) Plaintiffs further sought summary judgment against certain lienholders, one of whom, M&D Door and Hardware, had appeared and six of whom, including several government entities, had defaulted.

Summary judgment was granted against Borrowers directing transfer of title because, on review of the forbearance agreement, plaintiffs had “demonstrated the Borrowers’ failure to repay the loan in full upon the expiration of the forbearance period.” Slip op., p. 4. But plaintiffs’ motion was denied as to the lienholder defendants because no claims were asserted against them. Slip op. p. 4 (“Given that no claims are asserted against M&D, summary judgment cannot be entered against M&D”) and p. 5 (“‘no default can be taken against these entities since no claims were asserted against them in the complaint’”, quoting Bd. of Mgrs. of 255 Hudson Condominium v. Esen, 2018 NY Misc LEXIS 11105, *3 n 3 (Sup Ct, N.Y. Co. 2018).)