Amended Guaranty Law Raises Questions of Statutory Interpretation and Constitutionality
An analysis of the conflict that exists between the Amended Guaranty Law's explicit statutory language and the City Council's newly published declaration of legislative intent and findings. The article looks at the question of statutory interpretation and examines whether the newly amended Guaranty Law passes muster under the U.S. Constitution's Contracts Clause.
October 27, 2020 at 01:01 PM
14 minute read
On Sept. 29, 2020, Mayor Bill de Blasio signed into law Int. No. 2083-A / Local Law No. 98 of 2020, codified as N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 22-1005 (alternatively, the "Amended Guaranty Law" or "Local Law 98"). The Amended Guaranty Law is intended to relieve certain individual personal guarantors of commercial leases from enforcement of those guarantees, provided that the tenants defaulted during a statutorily defined window period of March 7, 2020 and March 31, 2021, and that those tenants: (1) were "required to cease serving patrons food or beverage for on-premises consumption or to cease operation[s]" during the COVID-19 pandemic, pursuant Governor Andrew Cuomo's Executive Order 202.3; (2) were "non-essential retail establishment[s] subject to in-person limitations" set forth pursuant to Executive Order 202.6; or (3) were otherwise "required to close to members of the public" under Executive Order 202.7. N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 22-1005(1). The statute does not require that tenants show actual financial harm.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Fusion Voting and Its Impact on the Upcoming Election
Trending Stories
- 1Antitrust Partner Plans Move to Davis Polk From Fried Frank
- 2How This Dark Horse Firm Became a Major Player in China
- 3Bar Commission Drops Case Against Paxton—But He Wants More
- 4Pardons and Acceptance: Take It or Leave It?
- 5Gibbons Reps Asylum Seekers in $6M Suit Over 2018 ‘Inhumane’ Immigration Policy
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
