Opinion
June 13, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that "the drastic remedy of summary judgment is appropriate * * * where a thorough examination of the merits clearly demonstrates the absence of any triable issue of fact" (Piccirillo v. Piccirillo, 156 A.D.2d 748, 750; see also, Marine Midland Bank v. Dino Artie's Automatic Transmission Co., 168 A.D.2d 610).
In this case, the defendant's contention that neither he nor the other guarantors signed the guarantee is belied by the documentary evidence of the guarantee itself which indicates that it was duly executed by both the defendant and the other guarantors. Nor has the defendant submitted any proof indicating that any of these signatures were either forged or otherwise fraudulently obtained. Thus, the defendant's "attacks on the validity of the guarantee [is] unjustified" and there is "no ambiguity to be resolved by a fact finder" (Ellenville Natl. Bank v. Freund, 200 A.D.2d 827, 828-829). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly awarded the plaintiff summary judgment based upon the unconditional terms of the defendant's personal guarantee of the promissory note made payable to the plaintiff.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.