Photo of Scott Owen

Scott Owen

Subscribe to Scott Owen's Posts

Scott Owen is a commercial litigator who resolves complex business disputes for individuals and companies across New York State.  Scott represents clients at all levels of state and federal courts, employing a strategic approach that emphasizes early dispute resolution and practical solutions. He combines aggressive advocacy with business-minded judgment to help clients achieve their objectives while managing litigation risks and costs.

Scott’s practice encompasses the full spectrum of commercial litigation, from initial case assessment through trial and appeal. He regularly handles matters involving contract disputes, real estate litigation, business divorce, and corporate governance issues.

Prior to joining Farrell Fritz, Scott developed his litigation skills at several prominent upstate New York firms, including a boutique business litigation practice and a regional full-service firm.  His experience includes representing municipalities, businesses, and individuals in complex commercial matters. During law school, Scott served as the Executive Editor for New York Appeals on the Albany Law Review, where he honed the careful analysis and attention to detail that now benefits his clients in private practice.

Follow:Read more about Scott OwenScott's Linkedin Profile
Justice,Scale,And,Gavel

Commercial loan documents are notoriously complex, packed with financial reporting requirements, compliance covenants, and collateral maintenance obligations.  For practitioners seeking the expedited relief of CPLR 3213’s summary judgment in lieu of complaint procedure, a critical question emerges: do these additional obligations disqualify the instruments from streamlined treatment?  In a recent decision, the New York County Commercial Division provided much-needed clarity on when ancillary provisions actually matter.

Legal Framework

Section 3213 of the CPLR allows plaintiffs to move for summary judgment in lieu of complaint when an action is based on “an instrument for the payment of money only.”  This expedited procedure bypasses the traditional pleading phase, but courts have long struggled with defining exactly what constitutes such an instrument.

The Court of Appeals established the foundational principle in Weissman v. Sinorm Deli, Inc., holding that “[w]here the instrument requires something in addition to defendant’s explicit promise to pay a sum of money, CPLR 3213 is unavailable.”  However, this broad language can leave practitioners uncertain about the countless ancillary provisions that populate modern commercial lending documents.

The Case: PFNGT LLC v. Liquid Capital LLC

In PFNGT LLC v. Liquid Capital LLC, Index No. 654595/2024, decided April 28, 2025, plaintiff PFNGT sought nearly $4 million under a secured promissory note, loan agreement, and related guaranty.  The defendants—borrower Liquid Capital LLC, guarantor Riccardo Spagni, and pledgor Wyoming Trust—mounted a sophisticated defense, arguing that the loan documents contained extensive non-payment obligations that disqualified them from CPLR 3213 treatment.Continue Reading When Additional Obligations Don’t Derail CPLR 3213: Commercial Division Clarifies the Test