While the general merger clause in the lease is ineffective to exclude the parol evidence of fraud in the inducement (see, Danann Realty Corp. v. Harris, 5 N.Y.2d 317, 320; Blittner v. Filroben Assocs., 183 A.D.2d 645), we nonetheless find that the motion court properly dismissed defendants' affirmative defense and counterclaim because the misrepresentation alleged, regarding the size of the premises to be rented, was not one upon which defendants could have reasonably relied. The dimensions of the subject premises were not within plaintiff's peculiar knowledge and could have been ascertained had defendants diligently inspected the premises, as they were bound to, to insure the protection of their interests in the subject arm's length commercial real estate transaction (see, Danann Realty Corp. v. Harris, 5 N.Y.2d, supra, at 322; Busch v. Mastropierro, 258 A.D.2d 492).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.