Summary
In Red-Kap Sales, Inc. v. Northern Lights Energy Products, Inc., 94 A.D.3d 1281 (3d Dept. 2012), the Third Department affirmed the trial court's order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against the individual defendant on the guaranty agreement.
Summary of this case from Albert v. Newtek Bus. Servs. Corp.Opinion
2012-04-12
RED–KAP SALES, INC., Appellant, v. NORTHERN LIGHTS ENERGY PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant,andTerry D. Young, Respondent.
Pozefsky, Bramley & Murphy, Albany (Anthony Murphy of counsel), for appellant. Harris Beach, P.L.L.C., Syracuse (Lauren H. Seiter of counsel), for respondent.
Pozefsky, Bramley & Murphy, Albany (Anthony Murphy of counsel), for appellant. Harris Beach, P.L.L.C., Syracuse (Lauren H. Seiter of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., ROSE, LAHTINEN, STEIN and GARRY, JJ.
PETERS, P.J.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Drago, J.), entered January 13, 2011 in Schenectady County, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
In December 2005, plaintiff and defendant Northern Lights Energy Products, Inc. entered into an agreement pursuant to which plaintiff would be the exclusive provider of gasoline to Northern Lights. Defendant Terry D. Young, the president and part owner of Northern Lights, signed the supply agreement and loan agreement on behalf of Northern Lights and, at that time, was also asked to sign a document entitled “Guaranty of Payment of Loan Agreement.” In April 2009, after Northern Lights ceased operations, plaintiff commenced this action against Northern Lights for, among other things, breach of the loan agreement and against Young individually based upon the guaranty agreement. After judgment was entered against Northern Lights, plaintiff moved for summary judgment on its claim against Young individually. Finding the guaranty agreement to be ambiguous, Supreme Court denied the motion. Plaintiff appeals.
It is for the court to determine as a matter of law whether a written agreement is ambiguous by looking within the four corners of the document and the circumstances under which it was executed, and only if an ambiguity exists may extrinsic evidence be considered ( see Kass v. Kass, 91 N.Y.2d 554, 566, 673 N.Y.S.2d 350, 696 N.E.2d 174 [1998]; W.W.W. Assoc. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157, 162, 565 N.Y.S.2d 440, 566 N.E.2d 639 [1990]; Ermiger v. Black, 36 A.D.3d 1053, 1054, 827 N.Y.S.2d 764 [2007]; Stuyvesant Plaza v. Emizack, LLC, 307 A.D.2d 640, 640, 763 N.Y.S.2d 146 [2003] ). An agreement “is unambiguous if the language it uses has ‘a definite and precise meaning, unattended by danger of misconception in the purport of the [agreement] itself, and concerning which there is no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion’ ” ( Greenfield v. Philles Records, 98 N.Y.2d 562, 569, 750 N.Y.S.2d 565, 780 N.E.2d 166 [2002], quoting Breed v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 46 N.Y.2d 351, 355, 413 N.Y.S.2d 352, 385 N.E.2d 1280 [1978]; see Williams v. Village of Endicott, 91 A.D.3d 1160, 1162, 936 N.Y.S.2d 759 [2012] ).
The document at issue is not titled “Personal Guaranty,” but rather “Guaranty of Payment of Loan Agreement,” and there is no language in the body of the document indicating that the signor is “personally” guaranteeing the loan agreement ( compare Key Equip. Fin. v. South Shore Imaging, Inc., 69 A.D.3d 805, 806–807, 893 N.Y.S.2d 574 [2010]; Crown Tire Co. v. Tire Assoc. of Fairport, 177 A.D.2d 974, 577 N.Y.S.2d 1019 [1991]; RCA Records v. Wiener, 166 A.D.2d 221, 564 N.Y.S.2d 89 [1990]; Crisafulli Bros. v. Kilmartin, 100 A.D.2d 678, 679, 473 N.Y.S.2d 875 [1984] ). Moreover, like the document at issue in Stuyvesant Plaza v. Emizack, LLC ( supra ), the guaranty agreement here was prepared by plaintiff and refers to an obligation incurred by “the undersigned,” yet nowhere in the document is Young, individually, or anyone else identified as “the undersigned” ( see id. at 640–641, 763 N.Y.S.2d 146; compare Key Equip. Fin. v. South Shore Imaging, Inc., 69 A.D.3d at 808, 893 N.Y.S.2d 574; PNC Capital Recovery v. Mechanical Parking Sys., 283 A.D.2d 268, 269–270, 726 N.Y.S.2d 394 [2001], lv. dismissed 96 N.Y.2d 937, 733 N.Y.S.2d 376, 759 N.E.2d 375 [2001], appeal dismissed 98 N.Y.2d 763, 751 N.Y.S.2d 846, 781 N.E.2d 911 [2002]; Crown Tire Co. v. Tire Assoc. of Fairport, 177 A.D.2d at 974, 577 N.Y.S.2d 1019). Instead, the words “Corporate Officers” appear at the bottom of the document, under which Young signed his name, which could indicate that Young was signing in his corporate capacity ( see Salzman Sign Co. v. Beck, 10 N.Y.2d 63, 67, 217 N.Y.S.2d 55, 176 N.E.2d 74 [1961] [“where individual responsibility is demanded the nearly universal practice is that the officer signs twice—once as an officer and again as an individual”]; Stuyvesant Plaza v. Emizack, LLC, 307 A.D.2d at 641, 763 N.Y.S.2d 146).
Contrary to plaintiff's contention, “[t]his is not a case of an individual merely adding his or her corporate title while signing a document that contains language in the body of the agreement identifying such person as an individual guarantor” or otherwise unambiguously indicating that the document is a personal guaranty ( Stuyvesant Plaza v. Emizack, LLC, 307 A.D.2d at 641, 763 N.Y.S.2d 146; see e.g. PNC Capital Recovery v. Mechanical Parking Sys., 283 A.D.2d at 269–271, 726 N.Y.S.2d 394; Florence Corp. v. Penguin Constr. Corp., 227 A.D.2d 442, 443, 642 N.Y.S.2d 697 [1996]; Crown Tire Co. v. Tire Assoc. of Fairport, 177 A.D.2d at 974, 577 N.Y.S.2d 1019; Chemical Bank v. Masters, 176 A.D.2d 591, 591, 574 N.Y.S.2d 754 [1991]; RCA Records v. Wiener, 166 A.D.2d at 221, 564 N.Y.S.2d 89). Rather, here, it is unclear as to whether Young was guaranteeing the loan agreement in an individual or representative capacity, and therefore consideration of extrinsic evidence is necessary in order to determine the intent of the parties ( see Stuyvesant Plaza v. Emizack, LLC, 307 A.D.2d at 641, 763 N.Y.S.2d 146; see also Star Video Entertainment v. J & I Video Distrib., 268 A.D.2d 423, 423–424, 702 N.Y.S.2d 91 [2000] ). Inasmuch as the affidavits submitted on the motion contain conflicting accounts of the parties' intentions and understanding as to who was purporting to guaranty the underlying obligation in the loan agreement, summary judgment was properly denied ( see Matter of Williams v. Village of Endicott, 91 A.D.3d at 1163, 936 N.Y.S.2d 759; Shook v. Blue Stores Corp., 30 A.D.3d 811, 812–813, 817 N.Y.S.2d 190 [2006]; compare Stuyvesant Plaza v. Emizack, LLC, 307 A.D.2d at 641–642, 763 N.Y.S.2d 146).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.