From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

TKS Realty, LLC v. 391 Broadway LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Mar 23, 2021
192 A.D.3d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

13398 Index No. 655517/19 Case No. 2020-03118

03-23-2021

TKS REALTY, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. 391 BROADWAY LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Ran Daniel, Queens, for appellants. Joseph H. Neiman, Jamaica Estates, for respondent.


Ran Daniel, Queens, for appellants.

Joseph H. Neiman, Jamaica Estates, for respondent.

Webber, J.P., Oing, Kennedy, Scarpulla, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered July 7, 2020, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract claims against defendants and awarded damages with compound interest on the principal amount, and denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the award of compound interest and remand for recalculation of simple interest at the contract rate, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a minority member of defendant 391 Broadway LLC (LLC), seeks to enforce a buyout right provided in the LLC's operating agreement and personally guaranteed by the individual defendants, the majority members of the LLC. The terms of the put option in the agreement are clear and unambiguous, including a trigger date and a means of calculating the buyout price (see Ellington v. EMI Music, Inc., 24 N.Y.3d 239, 244, 997 N.Y.S.2d 339, 21 N.E.3d 1000 [2014] ). Plaintiff demonstrated prima facie that it gave proper notice of its intent to invoke the buyout option and that defendant LLC did not make payment, and defendants raised no issue of fact precluding summary judgment.

As for the individual defendants’ liability, the operating agreement provides that they each, jointly and severally, personally guaranteed the LLC's obligation under the buyout option. Defendants’ reliance on cases involving the personal liability of corporate officers for the contractual obligations of the corporation (e.g. Salzman Sign Co. v. Beck, 10 N.Y.2d 63, 67, 217 N.Y.S.2d 55, 176 N.E.2d 74 [1961] ) is misplaced because defendants did not sign the agreement on behalf of any principal, disclosed or otherwise. Instead, the operating agreement was entered into by and among the individual members to form the LLC and set forth the terms governing the relationships among them (see LNYC Loft, LLC v. Hudson Opportunity Fund I, LLC, 154 A.D.3d 109, 114, 57 N.Y.S.3d 479 [1st Dept. 2017] ; Limited Liability Company Law § 417 ). In any event, they each signed the agreement individually, without any limitation on their signatures, and the individual defendants’ obligation to personally guaranty the buyout option is set forth in clear and explicit language, making their intent unmistakable (see Blandford Land Clearing Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 260 A.D.2d 86, 92–93, 698 N.Y.S.2d 237 [1st Dept. 1999] ). Defendants’ further argument that there was no consideration for their guaranty is unavailing. The minority members’ investment provided consideration for their undertaking and, because the guaranty was entered into concurrently with the principal obligation, no separate consideration was required ( 1855 E. Tremont Corp. v. Collado Holdings LLC, 102 A.D.3d 567, 568, 961 N.Y.S.2d 25 [1st Dept. 2013] ).

However, plaintiff is not entitled to interest on a compounded basis because the agreement did not so explicitly provide, but only provides for annual interest (see Giventer v. Arnow, 37 N.Y.2d 305, 308, 372 N.Y.S.2d 63, 333 N.E.2d 366 [1975] ; R.F. Schiffmann Assoc., Inc. v. Baker & Daniels LLP, 147 A.D.3d 482, 483, 47 N.Y.S.3d 277 [1st Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1040, 69 N.Y.S.3d 254, 91 N.E.3d 1233 [2017] ). Finally, defendants’ assertions that plaintiff's motion was premature, raised for the first time on appeal, is unavailing. Defendants fail to explain how discovery relating to their counterclaims would have provided any defense to plaintiff's breach of contract claims (see 3212[f]; Tavarez v. Castillo Herrasme, 140 A.D.3d 453, 454, 31 N.Y.S.3d 871 [1st Dept. 2016] ; Flores v. City of New York, 66 A.D.3d 599, 600, 888 N.Y.S.2d 27 [1st Dept. 2009] ).


Summaries of

TKS Realty, LLC v. 391 Broadway LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Mar 23, 2021
192 A.D.3d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

TKS Realty, LLC v. 391 Broadway LLC

Case Details

Full title:TKS Realty, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. 391 Broadway LLC, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 23, 2021

Citations

192 A.D.3d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
146 N.Y.S.3d 15
2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 1735

Citing Cases

Diamond v. Diamond

The Court concludes that the intent of the parties was to obligate Scott in his role as Trustee or Scott's…

Bank of Am. v. ASD Gem Realty LLC

The clearest indicator of Sweet's role, its signature, supports this conclusion. The signature line for…