N M PLUMBING HEATING v. CENACLE PROP

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the plaintiff that the promissory note sued on was an instrument for the payment of money only, within the meaning of CPLR 3213 (see, Gittleson v Dempster, 148 A.D.2d 578, 579; Seaman-Andwall Corp. v Wright Mach. Corp., 31 A.D.2d 136, 137, affd 29 N.Y.2d 617). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants' fraudulent inducement claim does raise a triable issue of fact precluding summary judgment relief (see, Millerton Agway Coop. v Briarcliff Farms, 17 N.Y.2d 57; GTE Automatic Elec. v Martin's Inc., 127 A.D.2d 545, 546; cf., Citibank v Plapinger, 66 N.Y.2d 90). Kooper, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.