Majority
By the clear and unambiguous terms of the commercial lease and the unconditional guaranty of the tenant’s obligations under the lease, plaintiff landlord was entitled to recover from defendant guarantor, as demanded, the full amount of the accrued pre-vacatur arrears, i.e., without a setoff in the amount of the tenant’s security deposit. Plaintiff had a right under the lease to determine when and how the security deposit would be applied towards the tenant’s outstanding lease obligations, and it advised the court that it intended to use the security deposit to cover post-vacatur damages, because defendant’s guaranty only covered the tenant’s lease obligations until the tenant vacated the premises.
Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.