Court Opinion

ID: 9407821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 15:01:16.725944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.356356
License: Public Domain

22-945-cv
     605 Fifth Prop. Owner, LLC v. Abasic, S.A.

                             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                          SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

 1                 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
 2   held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
 3   New York, on the 10th day of July, two thousand twenty-three.
 4
 5   PRESENT:
 6               MICHAEL H. PARK,
 7               WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
 8               ALISON J. NATHAN,
 9                     Circuit Judges.
10   _____________________________________
11
12   605 Fifth Property Owner, LLC,
13
14                               Plaintiff-Appellee,
15
16                     v.                                           22-945, 22-3195
17
18   Abasic, S.A., FKA Abasic, S.L.,
19                      Defendant-Appellant.
20
21
22   FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE:                                        JAY B. SOLOMON, Belkin
23                                                                  Burden Goldman, LLP, New
24                                                                  York, NY.
25
26   FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT:                                       JAMES H. HULME,
27                                                                  Washington, DC (Eric
28                                                                  Roman, New York, NY, on
29                                                                  the brief), ArentFox Schiff
30                                                                  LLP.
31
 1          Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of

 2   New York (Cote, J.).

 3          UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

 4   DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 5          Defendant-Appellant Abasic, S.A. (“Abasic”) appeals from the district court’s March 8,

 6   2022 denial of Abasic’s motion for summary judgment and grant of Plaintiff-Appellee 605 Fifth

 7   Property Ownership, LLC (“605 Fifth”)’s cross-motion for summary judgment. 605 Fifth leased

 8   a property to NTS W. USA Corp. (“NTS”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Abasic. 605 Fifth and

 9   Abasic entered a separate guaranty agreement (the “Guaranty”), under which Abasic agreed

10   “unconditionally and irrevocably” to guarantee “the full amount” of NTS’s “obligations under the

11   Lease, including without limitation Tenant’s obligation to pay Rent.” Joint App’x at A-115 to -

12   116. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, NTS filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and initiated an

13   adversary proceeding against 605 Fifth seeking to avoid its obligations under the lease based on

14   impossibility and frustration of purpose. The bankruptcy court and district court rejected NTS’s

15   arguments, and we affirmed on appeal. See In re NTS W. USA Corp., No. 21-2240, 2022 WL

16   10224963 (2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2022).      605 Fifth separately sued Abasic, arguing that Abasic

17   breached the Guaranty. The district court denied Abasic’s motion for summary judgment and

18   granted 605 Fifth’s cross-motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Guaranty waives

19   Abasic’s right to raise defenses to liability, and, in any event, Abasic’s defenses “fail on the

20   merits.”   Special App’x at SPA-10.     On appeal, Abasic argues that the district court erred

21   because (1) the Guaranty does not preclude its defenses against liability under the Guaranty,

                                                    2
 1   (2) NTS’s Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan (the “Plan”) contains a third-party release that

 2   extinguishes Abasic’s obligations under the Guaranty, and (3) frustration of purpose and

 3   impossibility excuse Abasic’s obligations under the Guaranty.              We assume the parties’

 4   familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

 5          “We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment, construing the

 6   evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted

 7   and drawing all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.” Bey v. City of New York, 999 F.3d

 8   157, 164 (2d Cir. 2021).

 9          The district court did not err by holding that 605 Fifth “met its burden on summary

10   judgment to enforce the Guarantee,” and Abasic’s defenses are thus waived. Special App’x at

11   SPA-10. “On a motion for summary judgment to enforce a written guaranty, all that the creditor

12   need prove is an absolute and unconditional guaranty, the underlying debt, and the guarantor’s

13   failure to perform under the guaranty.” 1 City of New York v. Clarose Cinema Corp., 256 A.D.2d

14   69, 71 (1st Dep’t 1998). “Guaranties that contain language obligating the guarantor to payment

15   without recourse to any defenses or counterclaims, i.e., guaranties that are ‘absolute and

16   unconditional,’ have been consistently upheld by New York courts.”            Cooperatieve Centrale

17   Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A. v. Navarro, 36 N.E.3d 80, 85 (N.Y. 2015).              “Absolute and

            1
               The Guaranty contains an express choice-of-law provision selecting New York law, so New York
     law governs this dispute. See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Orient Overseas Containers Lines (UK) Ltd., 230
     F.3d 549, 556 (2d Cir. 2000).

                                                       3
 1   unconditional guaranties have in fact been found to preclude guarantors from asserting a broad

 2   range of defenses,” including “claims of release.” Id. (cleaned up).

 3           Under      the     Guaranty,     Abasic’s         liability   is   “continuing,    absolute,     and

 4   unconditional . . . under any and all circumstances . . . without regard to the genuineness, validity,

 5   regularity or enforceability of the Lease.”      Joint App’x at A-116. And as neither party disputes,

 6   NTS failed to pay rent and Abasic in turn refused to perform under the Guaranty. See Special

 7   App’x at SPA-6.        The Guaranty also contains a waiver of defenses: “Guarantor [Abasic] shall

 8   not be entitled to claim, and irrevocably covenants not to raise or assert, any defense . . . against

 9   the Guarantied Obligations that would or might be available to Tenant [NTS], other than actual

10   payment and performance of all Guarantied Obligations in full in accordance with their terms.”

11   Joint App’x at A-116. So under its unqualified language, the Guaranty is enforceable, and its

12   waiver is broad enough to preclude the defenses Abasic has raised based on release, frustration,

13   and impossibility. 2     See Compagnie Financiere de CIC et de L’Union Europeenne v. Merrill

14   Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 188 F.3d 31, 36 (2d Cir. 1999).

15           Abasic’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. First, Abasic relies on Walcutt v.

16   Clevite Corp., 191 N.E.2d 894 (N.Y. 1963), but the guarantor in that case sought to invalidate the

17   agreement based on nonperformance, which is inapposite. In Walcutt, the New York Court of

18   Appeals held that “a guarantor, when sued alone by the creditor, can successfully resist by showing

19   that the creditor, on his part, totally failed to perform his obligations to the principal. In other

             2
               Although Compagnie Financiere related to a release defense based on the “release of the primary
     debtor,” not a release of the guarantor, Abasic does not argue that this distinction is meaningful, and we
     thus do not decide whether a third-party release of the guarantor creates a defense distinct from a release of
     the underlying debt.

                                                           4
 1   words, the guarantor may always assert a total failure of consideration . . . because the guarantor

 2   is not liable unless the principal is bound.” Id. at 897. Here, Abasic does not allege that 605

 3   Fifth failed to fulfill its obligations under the lease agreement or that the underlying lease is void.

 4   Even though NTS’s obligations under the lease were discharged in bankruptcy, the Guaranty

 5   provides that Abasic “waives any defense . . . based on the proposition that a guarantor’s liability

 6   cannot exceed the liability of the principal.”   Joint App’x at A-117. Moreover, unlike this case,

 7   “the guaranty in Walcutt was not unconditional and did not contain a waiver of defenses.” Plaza

 8   Tower LLC v. Ruth’s Hosp. Grp., Inc., 126 A.D.3d 579, 579 (1st Dep’t 2015).

 9           Second, Abasic has not shown that the Plan’s third-party release functions as an implied

10   modification or abrogation of the Guaranty. Abasic argues that the Plan effectively abrogates the

11   Guaranty because the Plan “clearly, unambiguously, and as a matter of law, constitutes a release

12   of all claims based on, relating to, or arising from NTS’s lease, including, without limitation, the

13   present action against ABASIC for breach of the Guaranty.”       Appellant’s Br. at 16. Abasic does

14   not argue, however, that its defense based on the third-party release falls outside the Guaranty’s

15   waiver of defenses, either because it was not a defense based on the greater liability of Abasic than

16   NTS, or because it was not a defense “available to Tenant.” Joint App’x at A-116. We thus

17   limit our review to resolving the issue as presented. See United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 140

18   S. Ct. 1575, 1579 (2020) (noting that under the party-presentation principle, “we rely on the parties

19   to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties

20   present”). Contrary to Abasic’s argument that the third-party release abrogates the Guaranty, the

21   Guaranty references its continuing enforceability even in the face of an “Insolvency Proceeding”—

22   defined as “any insolvency, bankruptcy, reorganization, liquidation, or like proceeding, or other

                                                        5
 1   statute or body of law relating to creditors’ rights, whether brought under state, federal, or foreign

 2   law.”    Joint App’x at A-115.    Moreover, Abasic’s argument is premised on the notion that the

 3   “guarantor is not liable unless the principal is bound,” Appellant’s Br. at 20, but the Guaranty

 4   waives all defenses “based on the proposition that a guarantor’s liability cannot exceed the liability

 5   of the principal,” Joint App’x at A-117.      We conclude that the Guaranty is enforceable, and

 6   Abasic’s defenses based on the release, impossibility, and frustration of purpose are thus waived.

 7   So we do not reach the merits of those defenses. Nor do we decide whether 605 Fifth consented

 8   to the Plan’s third-party release or whether the release is enforceable under In re Metromedia Fiber

 9   Network, Inc., 416 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2005).

10            We have considered all of Abasic’s remaining arguments and find them to be without

11   merit.   For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

12                                                  FOR THE COURT:
13                                                  Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
14

                                                       6