864 Broadway Corp. v Ladizinski

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

864 Broadway Corp. v Ladizinski 2005 NY Slip Op 30569(U) July 21, 2005 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 100437/05 Judge: Richard F. Braun Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. SCANNED ON 7/27/2005 [* 1] ..... .-"1 I SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW voJ- NEW YORK COUNTY HON. RICHARD F. BRA(!N fus~c~· PRESENT: ~b~ L~H~ ::t 3 7 ,Lo.) ~/q/os:r I INDEX NO. BP..DA-\)L>-->~/ C\)rP. MOTION DATE - v - l-A D I ""2.... I A..J S ~' MOTION SEQ. NO. J A r-J v A\ The following papers, numbered 1 to / iN L.J<..CA._ OF Coll'\PLA1 -<""-' ' JJ \ 3 d-3 PART Oo3 MOTION CAL. NO. ware read on this motion Wlfoi' .S'1 MM A Ci Jlt D ~Gd\ .(v;- PAPERS NUMBERED Notice of Motlonte;ds: lU llili8ll, Clll'!>- Affidavits - Exhibits •.• - Answering Affidavits - Exhibits II ( /) ~ 0 Replying Affidavits ------------- ---------------- .2. 3 (/) Ln a: CJ ~~ - 3: ti 0 0 f2 I- w ::> ...I .., ...I c :::c w la: a: a: 0 ~ w LL a: > :I ::> LL 1y w FILED 115;; m g; JUL 2 6 2QJs SQ w rn nr.Ma-ft!EW YORK ~ CJ : I! E/t/TEI{ 0 l- o ii Dated: N&i> /tJJk,. }.low Y¢vk..,t ~ ~·~or ~; Check one: 0 FINAL DISPOSITION Check if appropriate: ¥ -..nntlYC:..ERK'S OFFJr,,: .~£~ ~NON-FINAL DISPOSITION . D DO NOT POST 0 REFERENCE [* 2] _, SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: IAS PART 23 -----------------------------------------X 864 BROADWAY CORP., Index No. 100437/05 Plaintiff, OPINION -againstANNA LADIZINSKI and EDWARD ZffiJBRAK, Defendants. -----------------------------------------X RICHARD F. BRAUN, J.: This is an action on a guaranty. Plaintiff moves for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3213, and an inquest for attorney's fees. Due to plaintiff's failure to appear for oral argument on the motion, it was denied by this court's April 14, 2005 decision and order. By stipulation, the default and the order were vacated, and the motion restored to this court's calendar. Defendants guaranteed the tenant's performance under the subject lease with plaintiff. The tenant defaulted under the lease in the amount sought. Paragraph 1 (x) of the guaranty provides that plaintiff can collect reasonable attorneys' fees from defendants. Defendant Edward Zhubrak has not shown any basis upon which to deny the motion as to him. In spite of her allegations, defendant Anna Ladizinski is conclusively bound by the guaranty (see Amav Indus., Inc. Retirement Trust v Brown, Ruysman, Millstein, Felder & Steiner, 96 NY2d 300, 304 [2001]; Sterling Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of N.Y. v l.S.A. Merchandising Corp., 91 AD2d 1 571, 572 [I ~ Dept 1982]). The lease has not expired, and paragraph 31 thereof permits plaintiff to continue to retain the security deposit. Paragraph 4 (i) of the guaranty states that it shall not be [* 3] ,I, affected by plaintiff's holding a security deposit. Therefore, by this court's separate July 20, 2005 decision and order, this court has awarded plaintiff partial summary judgment against defendants in the amount of $84,899.50, reasonable attorney's fees to be assessed at an inquest, and costs. Pursuant to CPLR 8106 and 8202, plaintiff has been awarded a total of $100 motion costs against defendants. /l"Lc~~)~~ Dated: New York, New York July 21, 2005 RICHARD F. BRAUN, J.S.C. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.