You are here: / / Language of a Guaranty Must Be Strictly Construed

Language of a Guaranty Must Be Strictly Construed

In finding that the language of defendant's (Hart's) guaranty to pay the debts of a business (Gotham) in which Hart had a financial interest did not support the interpretation that the guaranty extended to purchases made by Gotham after the guarantor sold his interest in the business, the Second Department explained the analytical criteria:

Gary Hart, who was then the vice president of Gotham …, and had a financial interest therein, executed a credit application and agreement (hereinafter the credit agreement) on behalf of Gotham on a preprinted form provided to him by the plaintiff, Solco … . Pursuant to the credit agreement, Solco agreed to sell and deliver goods to Gotham on credit. The form recited, in pertinent part:

“PERSONAL GUARANTEE OF PAYMENT AND AGREEMENT*****”the undersigned, being financially interested in the above customer, hereby, jointly and severally, unconditionally, guarantee payment when due of all indebtedness of the above customer including any amount currently due to [the plaintiff] as such indebtedness may exist from time to time together with interest and/or finance charges” … .

The guaranty contained no provision requiring the defendant to notify Solco in the event that his financial interest in Gotham was terminated. * * *

The terms of a guaranty are to be strictly construed …, and a guarantor should not be found liable beyond the express terms of the guaranty … . Moreover, since the language in question was part of a form contract prepared by Solco, any alleged ambiguity should be interpreted against Solco … . Further, in determining the meaning of contractual language, “a court should not read a contract so as to render any term, phrase, or provision meaningless or superfluous” …, but should give effect to all of the contract's provisions … . Solco Plumbing Supply Inc v Hart, 2014 NY Slip Op 08626, 2nd Dept 12-10-14

 

You might also like
Nonparent Must Show Extraordinary Circumstances in Face of Custody Petition Even If Nonparent Has Custody Pursuant to Prior Consent Order
SIDEWALK REPAIR TOO FAR REMOVED FROM WORK ON A STRUCTURE, I.E., A GAS MAIN, INJURY NOT WITHIN PURVIEW OF LABOR LAW 240 (1).
THE MAJORITY HELD DEFENDANT, BY APPROACHING A JUROR AT THE JUROR’S HOME DURING DELIBERATIONS, FORFEITED HIS RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY A JURY OF 12; OVER A DEFENSE MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL, DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED BY A JURY OF 11 AND THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED; THERE WAS A STRONG DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
In Consolidated Actions Started in Different Counties, the County Where the First Action Was Brought is the Proper Venue
Although Elevator Company Which Agrees to Maintain Elevator May Be Liable to an Injured Passenger, Here the Passenger Was Unable to Raise a Question of Fact About the Company’s Notice of a Potential Problem
THE BANK’S DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Amendment of Reply to Add Statute of Limitations Defense Allowed
PLAINTIFF, A HOMEOWNER WHOSE COMPANY HIRED DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR TO WORK AT PLAINTIFF’S HOME, WAS A PROPER PLAINTIFF UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CONTROL OF THE WORK SITE AND HAD BEEN DELEGATED SITE SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Doctrine of Res Judicata Did Not Preclude Lawsuit Against Defendant Building... Analytical Criteria Re: the Validity of a Stipulation Explained