On October 8, 2025, Justice Bannon of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in CMTG Lender 10 LLC v. Chetrit, 2025 NY Slip Op. 33902(U), holding that an action for summary judgment in lieu of complaint was not barred by a guaranty’s reference to an agreement in addition to the note, explaining:
A plaintiff may seek relief under CPLR 3213 when the action is based upon an instrument for the payment of money only.. An instrument does not qualify as an instrument for the payment of money under CPLR 3213 if extrinsic proof is needed to establish the debt and its non-payment. In order to establish a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment in lieu of a complaint, a plaintiff must produce an instrument containing an unequivocal and unconditional obligation to repay, one which by its terms is for the payment of money only over a stated period of time. More specific to this case, it has been held that an unconditional guaranty under a lease may fall within the parameters of CPLR 3213.
. . .
[T]his guaranty is an instrument for the payment for money only, as it requires no additional performance by the plaintiff as a condition precedent to payment. The defendants also argue that CPLR 3213 relief is unavailable because the guaranty references a Pledge Agreement in Section 6.3, and thus, proof outside the guaranty is required. However, the plain language of Section 6.3 simply states that the guaranty survives the occurrence of an event of default under the loan agreement or foreclosure on the Pledge Agreement. Here, the plaintiffs seek recovery under the breach of the guaranty stemming from the loan agreement, not foreclosure under a pledge agreement. As stated previously, the guaranty establishes the defendants’ absolute, unconditional obligation to pay $22,000,000 in the event of a default under the loan agreement. Relief under CPLR 3213 is available when a guaranty incorporates by reference other agreements to the extent necessary to enforce its terms.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).