Summary
In 300 Park Ave., Inc. v Café 49, Inc. (89 AD3d 634, 933 NYS2d 274 [1th Dept 2011]), the First Department upheld a finding of damages under a guaranty assessed through the end of the term of a commercial lease, where the conditions providing for earlier termination of the lease were not satisfied.
Summary of this case from Deltoid, LLC v. NasserOpinion
2011-11-29
300 PARK AVENUE, INC., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. CAFÉ 49, INC., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Law Office of Milton D. Ottensoser, New York (Milton D. Ottensoser of counsel), for appellants. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York (Kenneth A. Philbin of counsel), for respondent.
Law Office of Milton D. Ottensoser, New York (Milton D. Ottensoser of counsel), for appellants. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York (Kenneth A. Philbin of counsel), for respondent.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., ANDRIAS, FRIEDMAN, CATTERSON, FREEDMAN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily J. Goodman, J.), entered September 10, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the second cause of action as against defendant Young Dai Lee also known as Yong Dai Lee, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The motion court properly found that Lee is personally liable for the post-judgment damages sought in the second cause of action pursuant to the terms of the guaranty he executed in June 1998, as well as the guaranty he subsequently executed in conjunction with a so-ordered stipulation.
In the initial guaranty, Lee unconditionally guaranteed defendant Café 49, Inc.'s “full and timely payment of all base rent, additional rent and all other sums payable by Tenant under the Lease during or attributable to any part of the Term.” The guaranty further provided that the “Term” would end on the day after Café 49 completely vacated the premises, removed substantially all of its property, and delivered possession “together with all keys thereto.” It is undisputed that the last condition was never satisfied and, thus, the motion court properly found Lee liable for damages until the end of the “Term,” June 30, 2010, as set forth by the lease. We also reject defendants' substantial compliance argument. Defendants failed to satisfy all three conditions as required by the guaranty. The terms were unambiguous. The interpretation of the terms presented a question of law for the court, which accorded those terms their plain and ordinary meaning ( see White v. Continental Cas. Co., 9 N.Y.3d 264, 267, 848 N.Y.S.2d 603, 878 N.E.2d 1019 [2007] ). Thus, contrary to defendants' contention, there is no question of fact regarding the interpretation of the guaranty.
We have considered defendants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.