Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint Denied When Amounts Due Under Guaranty Could Not Be Computed Without Consulting Other Materials

Posted: August 22, 2025 / Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. Butt, Joshua Wurtzel, Channing J. Turner / Category Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint

Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint Denied When Amounts Due Under Guaranty Could Not Be Computed Without Consulting Other Materials

On July 2, 2025, Justice Andrew Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Ally Bank, et al. v. Rybner, et al., Index No. 652277/2025, denying a motion under C.P.L.R. 3213 for summary judgment in lieu of complaint on a guaranty, explaining:

A document does not qualify for CPLR 3213 treatment if the court must consult other materials besides the bare document and proof of nonpayment, or if it must make a more than de minimis deviation from the face of the document.

. . .

On April 9, 2025, the Ally Parties filed a summons in this case and moved, pursuant to CPLR 3213, for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. In support of their motion, they adduce the affidavit of Adam Flood (NYSCEF Doc. No. 10). According to Mr. Flood:

24. The Dealer failed to comply with Section 4 of the Retail Plan with respect to the retail installment sales contracts listed on Exhibit C hereto (“Contracts”). The Ally Parties previously demanded that the Dealer accept reassignment of each of those contracts following the Dealer’s failure to promptly register and title the corresponding vehicles in a manner sufficient to perfect a valid and enforceable security interest in the Ally Parties’ favor. As of February 5, 2025, the total repurchase amount due to the Ally Parties as a result is $427,889.27, which amount corresponds to the full amount of the unpaid balances under such contracts.

25. In addition, the Dealer is in default of the MRLA because the Dealer failed to pay to the Ally Parties a total of $95,208.17, which amount is comprised of: (i) the certain SDT issued to the Dealer d/b/a AMG and dated March 2, 2025, which covers the period from February 1, 2025 to February 28, 2025 (in the amount of $33,829.41); and (ii) the certain SDT issued to the Dealer d/b/a M Sport and dated March 2, 2025, which covers the period from February 1, 2025 to February 28, 2025 (in the amount of $61,378.76). The two aforementioned SDTs are collectively attached hereto as Exhibit D.

26. Further, the Dealer has also failed to pay to the Ally Parties $72,143.85 in connection with the vehicle identified in Exhibit E hereto (“Exhibit E Vehicle”). The Exhibit E Vehicle was acquired by the Dealer as a trade-in made in connection with a retail sale by the Dealer to an individual named Erick Miranda. The Dealer has failed to pay off Mr. Miranda’s original retail installment sales contract in favor of the Ally Parties on the Exhibit E Vehicle (and the Exhibit E Vehicle was sold by Dealer to Mr. Miranda on another Ally contract).

The amounts allegedly due here cannot be computed without consulting other materials and proof of non-payment. Nor can this be said to be a de minimis deviation from the face of either the Guaranty or the MLRA.

While C.P.L.R. 3213 remains available when proof of the amount due under an instrument for the payment of money only requires examination of other documents, if more is required than simply looking at those documents, then a motion under C.P.L.R. 3213 is likely to be denied. Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning motions for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.