Appeal by plaintiff from so much of an order of the District Court, Suffolk County (H. Bergson, J.), dated October 8, 2002, as denied its motion for summary judgment.

Order unanimously modified by granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment solely as to liability both on guarantee she executed, plaintiff made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law as to liability and defendants failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Accordingly, the lower court should have awarded plaintiff summary judgment solely as to liability against the corporate defendant and Nancy L. Gonnoud.

Although plaintiff asserts that defendant Matthew S. Gonnoud also executed a personal guarantee, he and his wife, Nancy L. Gonnoud, state that he did not and that his signature thereon is a forgery. Inasmuch as plaintiff did not proffer evidence in admissible form establishing that Matthew S. Gonnoud affixed his signature to the guarantee and "a handwriting comparison under CPLR 4536 is not appropriate on a motion for summary judgment" (Dyckman v Barrett, 187 AD2d 553, 555), there is an issue of fact as to whether Matthew S. Gonnoud executed the personal guarantee.

Defendants' remaining contentions lack merit (see Banking Law § 491; McGovern v Best. Bldg. & Remodeling, 245 AD2d 925).
[*3]Decision Date: October 02, 2003