Kensington House Co. v. Oram

293 A.D.2d 304, 739 N.Y.S.2d 572, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3580
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 9, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 304 (Kensington House Co. v. Oram) 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
Kensington House Co. v. Oram, 293 A.D.2d 304, 739 N.Y.S.2d 572, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3580 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered on or about August 6, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion of plaintiff commercial landlord Kensington House Company (Kensington) for summary judgment insofar as such motion sought an award of additional obligations under the lease guaranteed by the defendants, including additional rent, late charges, water and sewer charges, costs, disbursements and attorney’s fees, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, Kensington’s motion for summary judgment granted in its entirety, and the matter remanded for a determination of plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees in the underlying landlord/ tenant rent dispute.

Where, as here, a creditor seeks summary judgment upon a [305]*305written guaranty, the creditor need prove no more than an absolute and unconditional guaranty, the underlying debt, and the guarantor’s failure to perform under the guarantee (City of New York v Clarose Cinema Corp., 256 AD2d 69, 71). These conditions of recovery have been satisfied by plaintiff. While the guaranty here at issue does not explicitly provide for costs and attorney’s fees incurred by Kensington in attempting to obtain payment of the underlying debt, the language of the guaranty, obligating the guarantors to the full performance of all monetary obligations under the lease, incorporates the explicit terms of the lease, which clearly provide for full payment of the additional rent, late charges, water and sewer charges, costs, disbursements and attorney’s fees sought by Kensington (see, BNY Fin. Corp. v Clare, 172 AD2d 203). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

64 W. 10th St. LLC v. L-Ray LLC
2026 NY Slip Op 00466 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026)
3 E. 54th N.Y. LLC v. Chatiris
2024 NY Slip Op 01244 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Vandergrand Props. Co., L.P. v. Warnock
206 A.D.3d 597 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Bauer
92 A.D.3d 641 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
HSH Nordbank AG New York Branch v. Swerdlow
421 F. App'x 70 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Reliance Construction Ltd. v. Kennelly
70 A.D.3d 418 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
HSH Nordbank AG New York Branch v. Swerdlow
672 F. Supp. 2d 409 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Gmac v. Mercure, Unpublished Decision (10-25-2007)
2007 Ohio 5708 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2007)
Rohn Industries, Inc. v. Platinum Equity LLC
887 A.2d 983 (Superior Court of Delaware, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
293 A.D.2d 304, 739 N.Y.S.2d 572, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kensington-house-co-v-oram-nyappdiv-2002.