DECISION ORDER ON MOTION Plaintiff Paul Galasso commenced this action pursuant to CPLR 3213 for summary judgment in lieu of complaint seeking a judgment in his favor against defendant Anthony C. Marano in the sum of $647,024.00 plus 1 percent interest from February 13, 2020. Plaintiff claims that a handwritten Stipulation executed by counsel for these parties and others, purporting to settle a 2018 action, qualifies as an “instrument for the payment of money only” under the CPLR, thereby entitling plaintiff to the requested money judgment. Affidavits have been filed attesting to service on defendant Marano by nail and mail and by delivery to a person of suitable age and discretion (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 10 and 11). Defendant has not appeared or answered. The motion is denied and the action is dismissed without prejudice. The Stipulation filed in the 2018 action does not qualify as “an instrument for the payment of money only” under CPLR 3213. The Stipulation was filed in an action entitled Paul Galasso v. Three to Get Ready LLC, Anthony M. Marano, and Anthony C. Marano, Index No. 653253/18 (“the Stipulation”). According to the moving affidavit from plaintiff Galasso filed in this action, Anthony M. Marano is the son of the defendant named here, Anthony C. Marano (NYSCEF Doc. No. 3). The Stipulation appears to provide for the transfer among the various parties of various percent interests in Three to Get Ready LLC in exchange for certain payments and credits, and it also speaks of outstanding obligations and anticipated credits on certain promissory notes. The Stipulation nowhere contains the $647,024.00 figure demanded here by plaintiff Galasso as a money judgment. As evidenced by plaintiff’s moving affidavit, the application of the rather complicated Stipulation depends on an explanation and at least one other document, which is the Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Operating Agreement that sets forth the percent interest held by the various members (not all of whom are named here) and the rights and obligations of those members (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 5). In sum, where as here, proof beyond a single document is necessary to substantiate the underlying obligation, the instrument fails to qualify as one for the payment of money only, and summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213 must be denied. See, e.g., Interman Indus. Prods. v. R.S.M. Electron Power,, 37 N.Y.2d 151, 155 (1975). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is denied, and the action is dismissed without prejudice to a proper proceeding, which may include an application to the Justice in the 2018 action to enforce the Stipulation. CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE Dated: May 6, 2021
