Opinion
December 28, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).
Each of the notes, including the final one, identifies defendant as the obligor, and makes no mention that defendant was acting as the representative of FNS, his alleged disclosed principal. Thus, no triable issue of fact exists which would preclude the granting of summary judgment in this matter. Defendant is precluded from offering parol evidence to rebut this conclusion as there are no ambiguities on the face of the note. As to defendant's claim that he was fraudulently induced to guarantee the loan, it is sufficient to observe that defendant cannot claim fraud based upon his own alleged ignorance. Nor has defendant shown that he is not liable on the note for want of consideration since he endorsed the plaintiff's check.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.