What Happened: Two individuals signed basically identical unconditional guaranties making them jointly and severally liable for the financial obligations of a medical tenant under a lease. The tenant defaulted, and the landlord evicted it. Unable to collect a dime from the tenant, the landlord sued the guarantors, who claimed they were no longer liable because the landlord had agreed to restructure the tenant’s rent obligations after the guaranty was signed and before the default occurred. By altering the tenant’s rental obligations without our express consent, the restructuring agreement discharged our duties under the guaranties, the guarantors argued.  

Ruling: The New York court denied the guarantors’ motion to dismiss the case. 

Reasoning: The problem with the guarantors’ argument is that it directly contradicted express language in the guaranty stating that “this Guaranty shall in no way be terminated, modified, affected or impaired by, and shall remain in full force and effect as to any modification, extension or renewal of the Lease...” The court also reasoned that the tenant’s eviction terminated the lease but not the guaranty, especially since there was no language in the guaranty stating that the guarantors would be discharged if the underlying lease was terminated or the tenant was evicted. Result: The landlord had made out a valid legal claim and was entitled to the opportunity to prove it at trial. 

• Second 800 No. 2 LLC v. Chai Care LLC, 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5303, 2025 LX 151286