Opinion
2003-60 SC.
Decided December 3, 2003.
Appeal by plaintiff from so much of an order of the District Court, Suffolk County (H. Bergson, J.), dated September 25, 2002, as denied its motion for summary judgment.
Order unanimously modified by granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as to its first and second causes of action; as so modified, affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: DOYLE, P.J., WINICK and SKELOS, JJ.
In this action to recover damages based on defendant corporation's breach of a lease finance agreement and the personal guaranty signed by the individual defendant, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. After reviewing the motion papers and documentary evidence attached thereto in support of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, we are of the opinion that plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law as to its first and second causes of action and defendants failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact ( see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Preferred Capital, Inc. v. IGHTMA, NYLJ, Oct. 9, 2003 [App Term, 9th and 10th Jud Dists]). Therefore, the lower court improperly denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.