Opinion
January 29, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.).
In July 1984, defendant, the sole owner of record of Universal Petroleum Products, Inc., executed in favor of plaintiff unconditional guarantees of the indebtedness of Universal Oil Distributors, Inc. and Universal Petroleum Products, Inc. In September 1987, defendant executed similar unconditional guarantees in connection with loans made to three other corporations, whose proceeds were used to reduce the original debt. Defendant also provided plaintiff with postdated personal checks as additional collateral. Plaintiff subsequently moved for judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213. In opposition, defendant claimed that in executing the guarantees he had merely been accommodating a friend and that plaintiff had assured him, fraudulently, that advances would be secured by a greater amount of collateral and that plaintiff would monitor the debtors' financial condition.
The Supreme Court properly found these assertions raised no material issues of fact. To the extent defendant's assertion that he had no knowledge of the details of debtors' businesses is relevant at all, in the face of plaintiff's documentary evidence, it cannot be considered genuine. (Columbus Trust Co. v Campolo, 110 A.D.2d 616, affd 66 N.Y.2d 701.) Defendant's assertions of fraudulent inducement lack sufficient evidentiary detail as to the particular circumstances in which the alleged assurances were given to competently raise any material issues of fact. (New York Fruit Auction Corp. v City of New York, 81 A.D.2d 159, affd 56 N.Y.2d 1015.) In any event, the unconditional language and nature of the guarantees would preclude this defense (Citibank v Plapinger, 66 N.Y.2d 90; Bank Leumi Trust Co. v D'Evori Intl., 163 A.D.2d 26, 34).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.