| HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Laniado |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02922 [72 AD3d 645] |
| April 6, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| HSBC Bank USA, National Association,Appellant, v Joseph Laniado et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Martin Kurlander, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondents.
In an action to recover on a revolving line of credit agreement and guaranty, the plaintiffappeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County(F. Rivera, J.), dated February 27, 2009, as denied that branch of its renewed motion forsummary judgment which was to recover the outstanding principal balance of $45,934.40.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and thatbranch of the plaintiff's renewed motion for summary judgment which was to recover theoutstanding principal balance of $45,934.40 is granted.
The plaintiff bank made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of lawagainst the defendants, Joseph Laniado and Regal Bath Fashion, LLC (hereinafter the company),by submitting proof of the underlying credit agreement, Laniado's personal guaranty of thecompany's obligations under that agreement, and the company's failure to make payment inaccordance with the terms of the credit agreement (see North Fork Bank Corp. v Graphic Forms Assoc., Inc., 36 AD3d676 [2007]; JPMorgan Chase Bankv Gamut-Mitchell, Inc., 27 AD3d 622, 623 [2006]; Ceglia v Marine MidlandBank, 296 AD2d 473, 474 [2002]; see also North Fork Bank v ABC Merchant Servs., Inc., 49 AD3d701 [2008]).
In opposition to the motion, Laniado alleged that he did not intend to make himselfpersonally liable for the company's obligations by signing the credit documents, and that hesigned the documents on behalf of the company only after a bank representative assured him thathe would not be personally liable. These assertions conflicted with the unambiguous terms of thecredit application and incorporated credit agreement which Laniado expressly signed both onbehalf of the company and as a guarantor, and thus were insufficient to raise a triable issue offact as to whether he intended to bind himself individually, or was fraudulently induced to signthe credit documents (see Key Equip.Fin. v South Shore Imaging, Inc., 69 AD3d 805 [2010]; North Fork Bank v ABC Merchant Servs.,Inc., 49 AD3d 701 [2008]; North Fork Bank Corp. v Graphic Forms Assoc.,Inc., 36 AD3d at 677; Korea Exch.Bank v A.A. Trading Co., 8 AD3d 344, 345 [2004]; PNC Capital Recovery vMechanical Parking Sys., 283 AD2d 268, 270-271 [2001]). Furthermore, Laniadoacknowledged that the company did not dispute the outstanding principal balance due under thecredit agreement. Accordingly, that [*2]branch of the plaintiff'srenewed motion for summary judgment which was to recover the outstanding principal balanceof $45,934.40 should have been granted. Fisher, J.P., Santucci, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.