Opinion
December 24, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
It is well settled that "the drastic remedy of summary judgment is appropriate only where a thorough examination of the merits clearly demonstrates the absence of any triable issues of fact" (Piccirillo v. Piccirillo, 156 A.D.2d 748, 750; Hantz v. Fishman, 155 A.D.2d 415, 416). Moreover, the parties' competing contentions must be viewed "in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion" (Lakeside Constr. v. Depew Schetter Agency, 154 A.D.2d 513, 514-515).
In the instant case, the appellant neither denied execution of an unlimited continuing guarantee nor claimed that he ever gave written notice of termination which the guarantee required. The claimed oral termination of the guarantee is without legal effect. Inasmuch as the guarantee specifically provided that it could only be revoked by a writing, the appellant continued to remain legally obligated as guarantor, absent a proper revocation (see, Norstar Bank v. Prompt Process Serv., 117 A.D.2d 589, 590).
The appellant's claim that the conduct of the bank's employees induced substantial reliance upon the alleged oral modification of the guarantee is unsupported by the record. "General conclusory allegations which contain no specific factual references cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment where the movant's papers make out a prima facie basis for the grant of the motion" (Bank of N.Y. v. Progressive Phone Sys., 71 A.D.2d 1010, 1011). Nor may the appellant avoid liability by claiming that he failed to read the guarantee (see, Scarsdale Natl. Bank Trust Co. v. S.E.W. Prods., 151 A.D.2d 657). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.