Crystal Run Vil., Inc. v Nathanson

Annotate this Case
[*1] Crystal Run Vil., Inc. v Nathanson 2015 NY Slip Op 50217(U) Decided on February 24, 2015 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on February 24, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MARANO, P.J., IANNACCI and TOLBERT, JJ.
2013-1382 OR C

Crystal Run Village, Inc., Respondent,

against

Debra Nathanson, Appellant.

Appeal from an amended order of the City Court of Middletown, Orange County (Steven W. Brockett, J.), entered July 19, 2013. The order granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's counterclaim.

ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the order dated June 6, 2013 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the amended order entered July 19, 2013 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the amended order entered July 19, 2013 is affirmed, without costs.

Defendant appeals from an amended order granting plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's counterclaim, which counterclaim sought to recover for damage, in excess of the security deposit, to an apartment which defendant had rented to a third party. Defendant based her claim on a guaranty of the annual rent executed by plaintiff.

The guaranty executed by plaintiff was clearly limited to the annual rent. Nothing in the guaranty required plaintiff to be responsible for additional rent or for any damage to the apartment in excess of the security deposit. As the guaranty should be strictly construed (see 63 NY Jur 2d, Guaranty and Suretyship § 115; Daniel Finkelstein & Lucas A. Ferrara, Landlord and Tenant Practice in New York § 4:234 [West's NY Prac Series, vol F, 2014]), we find that defendant's counterclaim was properly dismissed.

Accordingly, the amended order entered July 19, 2013 is affirmed.

Marano, P.J., Iannacci and Tolbert, JJ., concur.


Decision Date: February 24, 2015

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.