NORTH FORK BANK CORP v. Peter Battaglino, appellant. (2007)

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Peter Battaglino appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated July 20, 2005, as, upon reargument, adhered to a prior determination in an order dated March 17, 2005, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against him.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

 Contrary to the contention of the defendant Peter Battaglino, the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof of an underlying credit agreement, a personal guaranty bearing Battaglino's signature, and the defendants' failure to make payment in accordance with the terms of the credit agreement and guaranty (see JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Gamut-Mitchell, Inc., 27 A.D.3d 622, 622-623, 811 N.Y.S.2d 777;  Fleet Nat. Bank v. Marrazzo, 23 A.D.3d 337, 338, 804 N.Y.S.2d 99;  Royal Commercial Corp. v. Kotrulya, 304 A.D.2d 742, 743, 757 N.Y.S.2d 771;  Constructamax v. CBA Assoc., 294 A.D.2d 460, 742 N.Y.S.2d 555).   In response, Battaglino's conclusory denials that, although he signed the credit agreement, he did not sign a personal guaranty or intend to personally guarantee the obligations of the defendant Graphic Forms Associates, Inc., were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the motion (see JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Gamut-Mitchell, Inc., supra at 623, 811 N.Y.S.2d 777;  Peyton v. State of Newburgh, 14 A.D.3d 51, 54, 786 N.Y.S.2d 458;   Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. 7 A.M. to 11 P.M. Delicatessen, 251 A.D.2d 620, 675 N.Y.S.2d 872;  Vamattam v. Thomas, 205 A.D.2d 615, 613 N.Y.S.2d 220).   Accordingly, upon reargument, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its prior determination granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against Battaglino.

Battaglino's remaining contentions are without merit.