Opinion
August 4, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen G. Crane, J.).
Appellant's assertion that plaintiff told him that the instrument sued upon was not a guarantee but a security agreement replacing another that plaintiff had misplaced did not raise a genuine issue whether appellant had been fraudulently misled into signing the guarantee. Appellant is an experienced businessperson familiar with bank security agreements, and the word "guaranty" appears many times on the document in question. As the IAS Court found, the fact issue appellant would raise can only be viewed as "feigned".
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.