Opinion
August 9, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence the necessary elements of a cause of action to rescind a contract on the ground of fraud (see, Channel Master Corp. v Aluminum Ltd. Sales, 4 N.Y.2d 403, 406-407; Simcuski v Saeli, 44 N.Y.2d 442, 452; 60 N.Y. Jur 2d, Fraud and Deceit, § 11, at 446). Specifically, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendant misrepresented a material fact or intentionally concealed a material fact upon which the plaintiffs reasonably relied to their detriment (see, 60 N.Y. Jur 2d, Fraud and Deceit, §§ 88, 89, at 564-565).
Additionally, the plaintiffs failed to prove either mutual mistake or the necessary elements involving unilateral mistake which would require the rescission of the contract and return of the security (see, Janowitz Bros. Venture v 25-30 120th St. Queens Corp., 75 A.D.2d 203, 214-215; McClain Realty v Rivers, 144 A.D.2d 216, 218; 21 N.Y. Jur 2d, Contracts, § 121, at 528, 529; Calamari Perillo, Contracts § 9-26, at 379 [3d ed 1987]).
The trial court did not err in awarding the defendant attorney's fees, disbursements and costs based upon the clear provisions of the guaranty and the security agreement (see, Hooper Assocs. v AGS Computers, 74 N.Y.2d 487; Breed, Abbott Morgan v Hulko, 139 A.D.2d 71, affd 74 N.Y.2d 686). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.