Opinion
December 9, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We find the plaintiff's allegations that he relied on misrepresentations by the defendants as to the nature of the agreement and deed he was signing to be both flatly contradicted by the documentary evidence submitted by the defendants and incredible (see, Zigabarra v Falk, 143 A.D.2d 901; SRW Assocs. v Bellport Beach Prop. Owners, 129 A.D.2d 328; Roberts v Pollack, 92 A.D.2d 440). Moreover, given the business context of the transaction and the absence of any allegation that he was prevented from reviewing the agreement and deed, the plaintiff is presumed to have read them and cannot rely on any alleged contrary oral representations (see, Humble Oil Ref. Co. v Jaybert Esso Serv. Sta., 30 A.D.2d 952; see generally, Florence v Merchants Cent. Alarm Co., 51 N.Y.2d 793). The Supreme Court thus properly dismissed the complaint for the plaintiff's failure to allege the elements of fraud (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]; Clearview Concrete Prods. Corp. v S. Charles Gherardi, Inc., 88 A.D.2d 461; Brown v Lockwood, 76 A.D.2d 721 ). Harwood, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Copertino, JJ., concur.