The motion court properly found, plaintiffs' conclusory assertions to the contrary notwithstanding (see, Capelin Assocs. v. Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 N.Y.2d 338, 342), that defendant Lewis was not a party to and, accordingly, was not bound by the subject contract. The court also correctly concluded that the complaint failed to state a cause of action for fraud. Lewis's alleged misrepresentations amounted to no more than opinions and puffery or ultimately unfulfilled promises, and in either case were not actionable as fraud (see, DH Cattle Holdings Co. v. Smith, 195 A.D.2d 202, 208; see also, Brown v. Lockwood, 76 A.D.2d 721). Further, as plaintiffs admitted to personally conducting an investigation of the work of Zahran Interiors, the contractor they ultimately retained, they can make no sustainable claim that they relied to their detriment upon Lewis's representations as to her own expertise or the expertise of Zahran (see, 200 E. End Ave. Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 5 A.D.2d 415, affd 6 N.Y.2d 731).
We have reviewed plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Concur — Tom, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.