On August 4, 2022, the Fourth Department issued a decision in Counsel Fin. Holdings LLC v. Sullivan Law, L.L.C., 2022 NY Slip Op. 04861, holding that CPLR 3213 covers more than negotiable instruments and commercial paper, explaining:
We reject defendants’ contention that the note and guaranty are not instruments for the payment of money only within the ambit of CPLR 3213. The note contains an unambiguous promise to pay as and when required, as well as provisions governing default and acceleration of the debt upon default. The guaranty obligates the guarantors to irrevocably, absolutely and unconditionally guarantee to plaintiff the punctual payment and performance of the debt owed by Sullivan Law and to waive all defenses thereto. Thus, the instruments may be read in the first instance as instruments for the payment of money only.
Defendants further contend that the note is not an instrument within the scope of CPLR 3213 because it is neither a negotiable instrument nor a commercial paper. CPLR 3213, however, does not require that an instrument either be negotiable or qualify as commercial paper. CPLR 3213 has been applied even though an instrument was technically not commercial paper, and the statute is not limited to negotiable and non-negotiable paper within the terms of Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code inasmuch as CPLR 3213 contains no such restriction nor does the policy underlying this procedure. We likewise reject defendants’ contention that a line of credit may not be the subject of a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213.
Defendants also contend that the guaranty is not an instrument for the payment of money only because, in addition to guaranteeing Sullivan Law’s obligation to make payment under the note, it contains language obligating the guarantors to guarantee performance under the note. We decline to follow the First Department precedent advanced by defendants, and we conclude that the guaranty’s references to ensuring the performance of the note’s obligations do not negate its status as an instrument for the payment of money only. In any event, the guaranty required no additional performance by plaintiff as a condition precedent to payment nor otherwise made the guarantors’ promise to pay something other than unconditional.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).