Opinion
December 28, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Wood at the Supreme Court.
We further note that contrary to the defendants' contention, the general disclaimer and merger clause in the contract does not preclude an action to recover damages for fraud in the inducement nor does it bar parol evidence concerning the alleged fraudulent representations set forth in the complaint (see, Sabo v Delman, 3 N.Y.2d 155, 161; Great Neck Car Care Center v Artpat Auto Repair Corp., 107 A.D.2d 658, 659, lv dismissed 65 N.Y.2d 897). As stated by the Court of Appeals in Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center ( 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853): "The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case * * * Failure to make such showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers". Mollen, P.J., Lawrence, Weinstein and Kooper, JJ., concur.