500 West 43rd Street Realty, LLC v. Thukral

Background

500 West 43rd Street Realty, LLC brought an action against Anuj Thukral concerning a guaranty of Basic Monthly Rent and additional rent owed by Anuj-Rani West Side LLC under a lease. The plaintiff moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 for summary judgment on all claims in its complaint and dismissal of Thukral’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims. The opinion states that Thukral also moved for summary judgment and that the plaintiff did not submit opposition papers, but the ruling addresses and denies the plaintiff’s motion.

Legal standard

Under Rule 56, summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. For a breach-of-guaranty claim under New York law, the plaintiff must establish three elements: the defendant executed the guaranty, an underlying debt exists, and the defendant failed to perform under the guaranty. The defendant may then raise a genuine factual dispute based on a valid defense. Even when a summary-judgment motion is unopposed, the court must determine whether the movant has established its legal entitlement to judgment.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the plaintiff established the first two elements. There was no genuine dispute that Thukral executed the guaranty, and the tenant failed to pay Basic Monthly Rent and additional rent owed under the initial lease, creating an underlying debt.

The plaintiff did not adequately establish the third element—Thukral’s failure to perform under the guaranty. Although the complaint alleged that he failed to pay amounts due, Thukral disputed that allegation. Neither his Rule 56.1 statement nor the supporting declarations expressly stated that he had failed to perform. The plaintiff’s assertion in its legal memorandum that $359,820.57 remained unpaid was insufficient because the relevant factual support was not properly established in the summary-judgment materials.

The court also stated that the plaintiff appeared to seek reimbursement for taxes and legal fees that might be covered by the lease but were not expressly covered by the guaranty. The guaranty covered “Basic Monthly Rent, and additional rent,” but did not expressly cover taxes and legal fees.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal within 30 days of the order, provided the plaintiff can establish all three elements required for a breach-of-guaranty claim. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion docket entry.