1626 SECOND AVENUE LLC, plf-res, v. STEVEN SALSBERG, Defendant-res-ap, NICK CAMAJ, Defendant-Appellant-res

9701. 1626 SECOND AVENUE LLC, plf-res, v. STEVEN SALSBERG, Defendant-res-ap, NICK CAMAJ, Defendant-Appellant-res — Stern & Zingman, LLP, New York (Mitchell S. Zingman of counsel), for appellantres Joshua E. Abraham, New York, for res-res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered February 23, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant Steven Salsberg's counterclaim, denied defendants' cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied defendant Nick Camaj's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing Salsberg's cross claim, unanimously modified, on the law, without costs, plaintiff's motion denied, defendant Camaj's cross motion granted, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

9701. 1626 SECOND AVENUE LLC, plf-res, v. STEVEN SALSBERG, Defendant-res-ap, NICK CAMAJ, Defendant-Appellant-res — Stern & Zingman, LLP, New York (Mitchell S. Zingman of counsel), for appellantres Joshua E. Abraham, New York, for res-res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered February 23, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant Steven Salsberg’s counterclaim, denied defendants’ cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied defendant Nick Camaj’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing Salsberg’s cross claim, unanimously modified, on the law, without costs, plaintiff’s motion denied, defendant Camaj’s cross motion granted, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In this dispute between plaintiff landlord and defendants, the principals of a corporation that was landlord’s former tenant, the lease guaranty does not violate the statute of frauds (General Obligations Law §5-701[a][2]); it is in writing and signed by both defendants. Where, as here, there is a written and signed, but ambiguous, guaranty, parol evidence is admissible to clarify it (see e.g. Sound Distrib. Corp. v. Richmond, 213 AD2d 178, 179 [1st Dept 1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 702 [1995]; Korff v. Corbett, 18 AD3d 248, 251 [1st Dept 2005]).

1626 SECOND AVENUE LLC, plf-res, v. STEVEN SALSBERG, Defendant-res-ap, NICK CAMAJ, Defendant-Appellant-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal