I Bldg, Inc. v. Hong Mei Cheung

137 A.D.3d 478, 26 N.Y.S.3d 463
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 8, 2016
Docket16645 650226/14
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 478 (I Bldg, Inc. v. Hong Mei Cheung) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
I Bldg, Inc. v. Hong Mei Cheung, 137 A.D.3d 478, 26 N.Y.S.3d 463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered August 19, 2014, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Guaranties and leases are separate documents; the former impose obligations on the guarantors and the latter impose obligations on the landlord and the tenant (see Park Towers S. Co., LLC v 57 W. Operating Co., Inc., 96 AD3d 443 [1st Dept 2012]). When a guarantor is sued on the guaranty, as is the case here, he or she cannot raise a claim or defense which is personal to the principal debtor, such as breach of the principal contract, unless it extends to a failure of consideration for the principal contract, and therefore for the guarantor’s contract. (See Walcutt v Clevite Corp., 13 NY2d 48, 55-56 [1963]; see also Moon 170 Mercer, Inc. v Vella, 122 AD3d 544, 545 [1st Dept 2014]; Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC v Mitchell, 63 AD3d 447 [1st Dept 2009].) The defenses and counterclaims asserted in the answer arise from the lease and do not include failure of consideration, and defendant guarantor was not a party to that agreement. Therefore, plaintiff landlord’s alleged violation of the obligation not to unreasonably withhold consent to an assignment or sublease may not be raised in this action seeking to enforce the guaranty.

In any event, the defenses and counterclaims could have *479 been raised in the prior action against the tenant, but the tenant failed to appear and a default judgment was entered against it.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

119 Baxter St. CC LLC v. Castro
2026 NY Slip Op 31032(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
36th HY LLC v. Yan Rong Zhen
2026 NY Slip Op 30702(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
40th St. Tenants Corp. v. Eshaghian
2025 NY Slip Op 31210(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Simon Prop. Group, L.P. v. Tahari
2024 NY Slip Op 50415(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Barton Hall, LLC v. AFIAA 158 W. 27th St., LLC
2023 NY Slip Op 05977 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Deco Towers Assoc., LLC v. Fisch
197 N.Y.S.3d 129 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Moon 170 Mercer, Inc. v. Vella
2023 NY Slip Op 02827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Harlington Realty Co., LLC v. Lawrence Plumbing Supply Inc.
156 N.Y.S.3d 748 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
ALQ, LLC v. Kane
2021 NY Slip Op 05071 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Royal Equities Operating, LLC v. Rubin
2017 NY Slip Op 4223 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
137 A.D.3d 478, 26 N.Y.S.3d 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/i-bldg-inc-v-hong-mei-cheung-nyappdiv-2016.