Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant's cross motion seeking dismissal of the complaint. Defendant consented to submit to the personal jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York in the "INDIVIDUAL GUARANTEE AGREEMENT" which he executed on April 5, 1985 (see, National Equip. Rental v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311; Shepherd Showcase v. Pekala, 138 A.D.2d 960). Contrary to defendant's assertions, the guaranty was not superseded or discharged by the guaranty that he executed on April 24, 1985. Since the April 5, 1985 guaranty is effective, General Obligations Law § 5-1402 precludes dismissal of the action on the ground of inconvenient forum.
Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and, accordingly, we modify the order and grant plaintiff's motion. The unconditional guaranty executed by defendant on April 5, 1985, is an instrument for the payment of money only within the meaning of CPLR 3213 (see, North Cent. Pa. Regional Planning Dev. Commn. v. Woodworth, 154 A.D.2d 913; European Am. Bank Trust Co. v. Schirripa, 108 A.D.2d 684). Plaintiff met its burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment in its favor as a matter of law by the submission of the Individual Guarantee Agreement, the promissory note, and the affidavit of nonpayment (see, European Am. Bank Trust Co. v Schirripa, supra, at 684; Kornfeld v. NRX Technologies, 93 A.D.2d 772, affd 62 N.Y.2d 686). Defendant did not challenge the proffered documentary evidence. Defendant's averments lacked evidentiary support in admissible form and were insufficient to create a triable issue of fact or to constitute a defense that would defeat plaintiff's motion (see, Chase Lincoln First Bank v Mark Homes, 170 A.D.2d 995; Marine Midland Bank v. Idar Gem Distribs., 133 A.D.2d 525, 526; European Am. Bank Trust Co. v Schirripa, supra, at 685).