On July 14, 2023, Justice Chan of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Weisberg v. Standard, 2023 NY Slip Op. 32439(U), holding that a breach of a related contract cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, explaining:
Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to summary judgment under CPLR 3213 because the Note is an instrument for the payment of money only that he and defendants duly executed, and that defendants have defaulted on the Note. In opposition, defendants do not deny that the Note is an instrument for the payment of money only, within the meaning of CPLR 3213. They also do not deny that they failed to make payments required under the Note as they fell due. Plaintiff has therefore met his burden of establishing a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment under 3213 to liability.
Defendants nonetheless assert that plaintiff cannot be granted summary judgment because questions of fact exist as to plaintiffs liability for his alleged breach of the Noncompetition and Nondisclosure Agreement, which was entered ancillary to the Note and the Stock Purchase Agreement. On this point, the general rule is that a breach of a related contract cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment on an instrument for the payment of money only unless it can be shown that the contract and instrument are intertwined and that the defenses alleged to exist create material issues of triable fact. Here, plaintiffs alleged breach of the noncom petition and nondisclosure agreement is separate from defendants’ unequivocal and unconditioned obligation to repay the monies [they owe under the Note]. To the extent that the breach of contract defense may amount to a viable claim, it may be asserted in a separate action. Accordingly, plaintiffs purported breach of the Noncompetition and Nondisclosure Agreement does not preclude granting plaintiffs motion.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).