Opinion
January 18, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.).
Ordered that the appeals from the orders dated July 27, 1992, March 19, 1993, and May 13, 1993, respectively, are dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
The appeals from the intermediate orders must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the orders are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
The papers submitted in support of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment established that (1) the appellant borrowed $251,250 from the plaintiff, (2) the loan was evidenced by a duly executed and recorded mortgage note and secured by a mortgage given by the appellant to the plaintiff encumbering the subject property, (3) the appellant defaulted on the payment due August 1, 1990, and (4) the default continued at the time the papers on the motion were prepared. Thus, the plaintiff established that it was entitled to foreclosure as a matter of law (see, Alagappan v Jaffer, 157 A.D.2d 687; Gateway State Bank v. Shangri-La Private Club for Women, 113 A.D.2d 791, 792, affd 67 N.Y.2d 627). By contrast, the appellant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial or an acceptable excuse for his failure to do so. Accordingly, the court properly granted summary judgment to the plaintiff (see, CPLR 3212; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562; Gateway State Bank v. ShangriLa Private Club for Women, supra).
We have reviewed the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Balletta, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.