Opinion
April 15, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The appellant's claim that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is without merit. A guarantor may raise a triable issue of fact concerning whether he or she was induced to execute a guarantee in reliance upon fraudulent representations made by the opposing party ( see, Zaro Bake Shop v. David, 176 A.D.2d 721; GTE Automatic Elec. v Martin's, Inc., 127 A.D.2d 545, 546). However, no triable issue of fact is raised where "an express provision in the written contract contradicts the claimed oral representations in a meaningful fashion" and the conflict between the two "negates the claim of reliance upon [the claimed oral representations]" ( Bango v. Naughton, 184 A.D.2d 961, 963; see, Rudnick v. Glendale Sys., 222 A.D.2d 572; State Univ. Constr. Fund v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., 189 A.D.2d 929, 932). In this case, the appellant's claim of reliance on alleged oral representations is contradicted by the written provision that the guarantee was a continuing one which "shall extend to all sales and deliveries of products" by the plaintiff to the defendant Empire Glass Company. This provision negates the appellant's claim that she relied upon any such oral representations.
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit ( see, Werner v. Nelkin, 206 A.D.2d 422, 423; Rosenman Colin Freund Lewis Cohen v. Neuman, 93 A.D.2d 745, 746; cf., Dynaforce v. Bruno GMC Truck Sales Corp., 223 A.D.2d 618). Miller, J.P., Joy, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.