Summary
requiring defendants who asserted that their obligation was subject to an oral condition precedent to prove the condition was part of the agreement
Summary of this case from Mumblow v. Monroe Broadcasting, Inc.Opinion
December 16, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Meade, J.).
Orders affirmed, with one bill of costs.
In order to defeat plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, it was necessary that defendants show the existence of a bona fide defense by evidentiary facts in admissible form (see, Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 N.Y.2d 223, 231). Defendants' principal allegation is that all obligations pursuant to the contract at issue were conditioned upon approval by the construction lender of the standby mortgage commitment provided by plaintiff. No such condition precedent is found in the written contract.
In order to prove the oral condition precedent it was necessary for defendants to allege in detail when, where, and by whom the alleged agreement was made (see, Sutton v East Riv. Sav. Bank, 55 N.Y.2d 550; Apache-Beals Corp. v International Adjusters, 59 A.D.2d 1032, affd 46 N.Y.2d 888). The affidavits submitted in opposition to the summary judgment motion and in support of the application, inter alia, for renewal do not contain the required details, but merely state in conclusory fashion that such an agreement was made. Such bald, conclusory allegations are insufficient to defeat the summary judgment motion (see, Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, supra).
Defendants also allege various other defenses, including fraud in the inducement, failure of consideration, mistake, and usury. None was stated in sufficient detail to justify denial of plaintiff's motion.
The affidavits submitted upon that branch of defendants' motion which was for renewal do not establish any defense to plaintiff's action.
Defendants argue further that CPLR 3213 was an inappropriate vehicle for the relief sought in the instant action. This claim was not raised at Special Term and therefore cannot be raised on appeal (see, Shapira v United Med. Serv., 15 N.Y.2d 200, 217). In any event, CPLR 3213 was an appropriate procedure in this case (see, Seaman-Andwall Corp. v Wright Mach. Corp., 31 A.D.2d 136, affd 29 N.Y.2d 617). Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.