Summary
noting that “the terms of the guarantee . . . are to be strictly construed in favor of the private guarantor”
Summary of this case from CP III Rincon Towers, LLC v. CohenOpinion
December 22, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, First Department (Ostrau, P. J., Parness and Freedman, JJ.).
We agree with the Appellate Term that where, as here, "a guaranteed contract has no definite time to run, an uncompensated guarantor may revoke and end its future liability by reasonable notice to the principal" ( 174 Misc.2d 998, 999, citing 63 N.Y. Jur.2d, Guaranty and Suretyship, §§ 147, 152; 10 Williston, Contracts § 1253 [3d ed]). Since defendant guarantor revoked her guarantee for her son's rent stabilized lease during the first renewal period, and since the judgment upon which plaintiff landlord sued her arises exclusively out of unpaid rent from subsequent renewal periods, the Appellate Term properly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. In addition to finding that the underlying obligation was for an indefinite period, making the guarantee unilaterally revocable, we note that the terms of the guarantee, which are to be strictly construed in favor of the private guarantor, reasonably can be viewed as only obligating the guarantor for the first renewal period ( see, Trump Mgt. v. Tuberman, 163 Misc.2d 921). Moreover, since the guarantee is a separate contract from the lease ( see, supra), we need not pass on whether its revocation or natural termination had any effect on the rent stabilized lease guaranteed. We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them to be unavailing. [ See, 174 Misc.2d 998.]
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ. [ See, 174 Misc.2d 998.]