3782. 600 LEXINGTON OWNER LLC, plf-res, v. JAY M. KAPLOWITZ def, ROBERT S. WOLF def-ap — Todd & levi, LLP, New York (Jill Levi of counsel), for Robert S. Wolf and Barry Zone, ap — Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene Genovese & Gluck P.C., New York (Nicholas Caputo of counsel), for David E. Danovitch, ap — Stempel Bennett Claman & Hochberg, P.C., New York (Dennis H. McCoobery of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered June 29, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment as to liability against defendants Robert S. Wolf, Barry Zone, and David E. Danovitch, and denied Danovitch’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiff partial summary judgment as against Danovitch only to the extent that plaintiff incurred damages after February 15, 2012, and to deny partial summary judgment as against Zone, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff, the successor in interest to the landlord, submitted prima facie evidence of Danovitch’s liability for damages incurred after February 15, 2012 (see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Specifically, it submitted the Lease, the Guaranty, the Third Amendment, and an amended Schedule 11 executed by Danovitch on February 15, 2012. It also submitted the affidavit of the general counsel of plaintiff’s managing agent, who attested to the law firm’s default on the Lease payments. While the Third Amendment contained ambiguous provisions regarding the “Guarantors” listed on “Schedule 11,” Danovitch admitted in his answer and in a separate settlement agreement that he was a guarantor of the Lease (Impala Partners v. Borom, 133 AD3d 498, 499 [1st Dept 2015]). In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, Danovitch failed to raise a triable issue of fact. His argument regarding lack of consideration for the guaranty is unavailing, as the landlord continued to perform under the Lease each month by permitting the law firm to occupy the space, and by doing so provided consideration to Danovitch, a partner at the firm (see Sun Oil Co. v. Heller, 248 NY 28, 32-33 [1928]; Columbus Trust Co. v. Campolo, 110 AD2d 616, 617-618 [2d Dept 1985], affd 66 NY2d 701 [1985]). In addition, even if Danovitch’s guaranty was provided for “past consideration” (i.e., to induce the landlord into extending the Lease), it should not be denied legal effect as a valid contract, as it was in writing and executed by Danovitch (see General Obligations Law §5-1105; Samet v. Binson, 122 AD3d 710, 711 [2d Dept 2014]). Danovitch’s discovery request does not affect this appeal and primarily concerns his cross claim, which is not the subject of any of the underlying motions.
