Commercial Division Blog
Summary Judgment In Lieu of Complaint Proper Despite Plaintiff’s Failure To Specify Exact Amount Due
Posted: October 20, 2025 / Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Thomas A. Kissane, Channing J. Turner, Joshua Wurtzel, Samuel L. Butt / Categories CPLR 3213, Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint, Contracts
Summary Judgment In Lieu of Complaint Proper Despite Plaintiff’s Failure To Specify Exact Amount Due
On September 16, 2025, in Waam Yieldco LLC v. Frank, Index No. 653371/2025, Justice Andrew Borrok found that plaintiff’s failure to specify the exact amount due did not prevent entry of summary judgment under CPLR 3213.
As Justice Borrok explained:
. . . the Lender adduces evidence of the Note, the Guaranty, a maturity default, and the Borrower’s failure to pay $3,300,000, plus interest (NYSCEF Doc. No. 5). Thus, the Lender meets its prima facie burden demonstrating its entitlement to summary judgment (DDS Partners [LLC v. Celenza], 6 AD3d [347] at 348 [1st Dept 2004]). In their opposition papers, the Borrower merely indicates that the Lender fails to provide the exact amount of money due but does not otherwise dispute the amount borrowed, the lack of repayment, the maturity date, the applicable interest rates, or that the loan documents otherwise provide for the payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees. This is insufficient as a matter of law to raise an issue of fact warranting further proceedings (Equator International Inc. v NH Street Investors, Inc., 978 NYS2d 817, 823 [Sup Ct, NY County 2014]; Community Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of N.Y. v. I.M.F. Trading, Inc., 561 NYS2d 578, 580 [1st Dept 1990]).
Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning commercial instruments or summary judgment.