On November 29, 2025, Justice Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Silver Point Fin., LLC v. Venetos, 2025 NY Slip Op. 34571(U), holding that the existence of loan collateral does not preclude collection of a defaulted loan against the guarantor, explaining:
Pursuant to CPLR 3213, a party may commence an action by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint when the action is based upon an instrument for the payment of money only or upon any judgment. An instrument for the payment of money only is one that requires the defendant to make a certain payment or payments and nothing else. It is well settled that a promissory note, as an instrument for the payment of money only, is entitled to the expedited procedure detailed in CPLR 3213. Once the plaintiff submits evidence establishing its prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the defendant to submit evidence establishing the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense.
Here, Silver Point has established a prima facie case for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213 by demonstrating that (i) Defendants executed the Promissory Note in favor of Plaintiffs in the principal amount of $20,971,020.15 (the “Note”) divided into two tranches; (ii) the Note contains unconditional promises to repay Tranche A in full by August 31, 2025 or upon acceleration after an event of default and Tranche B in monthly payments of at least $624,999.90 beginning June 1, 2025; and (iii) while Defendants made the first required payment on June 1, 2025, Defendants failed to make the second payment due on July 1, 2025, resulting in a default under Note and the acceleration of the entire debt.
In opposition, Defendants fail to establish by admissible evidence the existence of a triable issue of fact to avoid enforcement of the Note. Defendants do not dispute that they signed the Note in favor of Silver Point, that they failed to pay the Note as and when required, or that as a result, Defendants owe $20,506,154.11 on the Note, plus interest, costs, and expenses. Rather, Defendants argue that the Note was part of a complex lending arrangement and that the Note is secured by collateral. Neither point undermines Plaintiff’s entitlement to relief under CPLR 3213 with respect to the Note.
First, the fact that the instrument for the payment of money only references and is part of a broader loan agreement does not preclude the applicability of CPLR 3213.
Second, the fact the Note was secured by collateral does not alter its essential character as an instrument for the payment of money only and, accordingly, is immaterial to plaintiff’s right to relief pursuant to CPLR 3213. As noted in HCG Mezzanine Dev. Fund, L.P. v Jreck Holdings, LLC (37 Misc 3d 1217(A) [Sup Ct, NY County 2012]), the additional security obligation does not negate the obligation to pay under the notes although the notes are secured by stock, the obligation to pay on the notes and the right to enforce the security interest are independent of each other. The same applies here. Moreover, the Note specifically provides that “[u]pon the occurrence and during the continuance of an Event of Default, Agent may, in addition to any other rights or remedies available to Agent pursuant to this Note or at law or in equity, take such action, without notice or demand, that Agent deems advisable to protect and enforce Lenders’ rights against Obligors, including, without limitation, declaring the Debt to be immediately due and payable.”
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).