NORTH FORK v. GRAPHIC

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 AD3d 622, 622-623; Fleet Natl. Bank v Marrazzo, 23 AD3d 337, 338; Royal Commercial Corp. v Kotrulya, 304 AD2d 742, 743; Constructamax, Inc. v CBA Assoc., 294 AD2d 460). 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, Ike, supra at 623; Peyton v State of Newburgh, Inc., 14 AD3d 51, 54; Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v 7 A.M. to 11 P.M. Delicatessen, 251 AD2d 620; Vamattam v Thomas, 205 AD2d 615). 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.