Chen v. Yan
| Decision Date | 24 September 2013 |
| Citation | 971 N.Y.S.2d 519,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 05957,109 A.D.3d 727 |
| Parties | Eugenie CHEN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Tony YAN, etc., et al., Defendants–Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
109 A.D.3d 727
971 N.Y.S.2d 519
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 05957
Eugenie CHEN, Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
Tony YAN, etc., et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Sept. 24, 2013.
[971 N.Y.S.2d 520]
Kenneth R. Fields, New York, for appellant.
Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C., Flushing (Ruofei Xiang of counsel), for respondents.
TOM, J.P., MAZZARELLI, MOSKOWITZ, GISCHE, JJ.
[109 A.D.3d 727]Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered August 23, 2012, which, to the extent appealed
[971 N.Y.S.2d 521]
from as limited by the briefs, dismissed the complaint against defendant Yan, denied plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendants' affirmative defenses alleging the statute of frauds and Yan's lack of personal liability, failed to award interest against defendant PA Estate, LLC at the contractual rate of 10% per annum for the period from November 16, 2011 through August 21, 2012, and failed to refer the issue of the amount of plaintiff's collection costs and expenses to the Special Referee, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate the claims against Yan, to award plaintiff interest at the rate of 10% per annum through the date of the order (August 21, 2012), and to refer the matter of collection costs to the Special Referee, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Tony Yan, the individual defendant, is the principal of defendant PA Estate LLC (the LLC). On October 18, 2009, Yan affixed his signature to a promissory note in favor of plaintiff Eugenie Chen which stated:
“For value received, the undersigned hereby jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of the lender Eugenie Chen, the sum of ... $50,000.00 ... together with interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum on the unpaid balance ... The term of this investment loan is for 12 months. As a result, the undersigned borrower will be required to repay the entire principal. The lender has no obligation to refinance this loan at the end of its term. Provided, 6 months written advance notice given by either party to the other for termination or willing to refinance.”
The signature page of the note had two signature lines, each next to the word “Borrower,” and one on top of the other. Underneath the top line was typed the words “Tony Yan (Owner),” and Tony Yan's signature appeared above that line. Stamped immediately below the typed words “Tony Yan (Owner),” and covering the area immediately above and below the bottom signature line was a stamp stating: “E/I# 20–3529181 PA Estate LLC 264–29 Grand Central PKWY. Little [109 A.D.3d 728]Neck, N.Y. 11362–2526.” On the same signature page was a section titled “Guaranty,” but the two signature lines over the word “ Guarantor” were left blank. A notary's signature and stamp were affixed at the bottom of the signature page, under the words “For Tony Yan.”
On or about July 9, 2010, plaintiff delivered a termination notice to Yan in which she informed him that she did not wish to extend the loan and in which she demanded repayment of the principal amount of the loan together with interest by December 31, 2010. In November 2011 plaintiff commenced this action, in which she asserted that defendants failed to repay the loan and that they were jointly liable to her. Plaintiff further alleged that defendants fraudulently induced her into extending the loan by representing to her that they would pay the balance if she terminated the loan on six months notice. Finally, plaintiff sought an award of her attorneys' fees, pursuant to a provision in the note providing for same in the event of a default.
Defendants filed an answer in which they denied the material allegations in the complaint and asserted 11 affirmative defenses. The first nine defenses were lack of jurisdiction based on improper service of the summons and complaint; failure to state a cause of action; estoppel; waiver; unclean hands; lapse; failure to mitigate damages; statute of frauds; and the parol evidence rule. The tenth defense asserted that Yan merely signed the note in his capacity as the manager of the LLC, and bore no personal liability to plaintiff. Finally, the eleventh defense alleged that in
[971 N.Y.S.2d 522]
August 2011 plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. URS Corp.
...244 (2014); Gilbane Bldg. Co./TDX Constr. Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 143 A.D.3d 146, 151 (1st Dep't 2016); Chen v. Yan, 109 A.D.3d 727, 729 (1st Dep't 2013). The contracts' plain terms, not the parties' understanding of the contracts, govern the parties' rights and obligations ......
-
Dritsas v. Amchem Prods., Inc.
...; Gilbane Bldg. Co./TDX Constr. Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co. , 143 A.D.3d at 151, 38 N.Y.S.3d 1 ; Chen v. Yan , 109 A.D.3d 727, 729, 971 N.Y.S.2d 519 (1st Dep't 2013). A contract's provisions are not ambiguous, however, merely because the parties interpret the provisions different......
-
Peranzo v. WFP Tower D Co.
...24 N.Y.3d 239, 244 (2014); Gilbane Bldg. Co./TDX Constr. Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 143 A.D.3d at 151; Chen v. Yan, 109 A.D.3d 727, 729 (1st Dep't 2013). The subcontract's provisions are not ambiguous merely because the parties may interpret the provisions differently. Universa......
-
Zai v. RoGallery Image Makers Inc.
...2022 NY Slip Op 50515(U) Nancy Bumin Zai, Plaintiff v. RoGallery Image Makers Inc. and ROBERT ROGAL, Defendants. Index No. 151145/2016Supreme Court, Richmond CountyJune 15, 2022 ... Unpublished ... ... Plaintiff is represented by Yong Chen" Esq of Liu, Chen & ... Hoffman LLP ... ... Defendants are represented by Howard File Esq ... ... Catherine M. DiDomenico, J ... Recitation ... as required by CPLR 2219(a) of the papers considered in the ... review of Motion ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Litigation
...piercing principles applied by court, concluding there was sufficient evidence to survive a motion for summary judgment. Chen v. Yan , 971 N.Y.S.2d 519 (App. Div. 1st 2013). An LLC owner was not liable as guarantor of a promissory note but may have primary liability under the note. Defendan......