Opinion
June 5, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ferraro, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The mere assertion by the defendants that it was not their intention to become liable for the debtor's two preexisting notes does not raise a triable issue of fact since the unconditional and continuing guarantee which they executed clearly provides that the guarantee was to apply to the preexisting debts (see, Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Turner Constr. Co., 2 N.Y.2d 456, 460; National Bank v. Dogwood Constr. Corp., 47 A.D.2d 848; cf., Kleet Lbr. Co. v. Quail Homes, 129 A.D.2d 564, 565). The defendants' further contention that they were fraudulently induced into executing the guarantee is unsupported by evidentiary facts and such an assertion is belied by the express provisions of the guarantee (see, Citibank v. Plapinger, 66 N.Y.2d 90).
We have examined the defendants' remaining contentions and find them to without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Rubin, JJ., concur.