Opinion
2011-11-15
Jacqueline SINGOTIKO, respondent,v.J. Bradford KENEALY, appellant.
Scott J. Gilmore, Massapequa Park, N.Y., for appellant.
In an action to recover on two promissory notes, brought by a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), entered January 25, 2010, which granted the motion and directed the entry of a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $247,733.34.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213 based on two promissory notes. The plaintiff met her burden of establishing that the defendant executed the two notes and defaulted in making payments according to their terms ( see Larry Lawrence IRA v. Exeter Holding Ltd., 84 A.D.3d 1175, 1176, 924 N.Y.S.2d 799; Jin Sheng He v. Sing Huei Chang, 83 A.D.3d 788, 789, 921 N.Y.S.2d 128; Cutter Bayview Cleaners, Inc. v. Spotless Shirts, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 708, 709, 870 N.Y.S.2d 395). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Levien v. Allen, 52 A.D.3d 578, 860 N.Y.S.2d 174; Lorenz Diversified Corp. v. Falk, 44 A.D.3d 910, 844 N.Y.S.2d 370; Anand v. Wilson, 32 A.D.3d 808, 810, 821 N.Y.S.2d 130). Moreover, while the defendant alleged the existence of several counterclaims, he failed to
show that the counterclaims were related to, much less intertwined with, the subject promissory notes ( see Lorber v. Morovati, 83 A.D.3d 799, 800, 922 N.Y.S.2d 109; Neuhaus v. McGovern, 293 A.D.2d 727, 728, 741 N.Y.S.2d 436; Harris v. Miller, 136 A.D.2d 603, 523 N.Y.S.2d 586).
SKELOS, J.P., BALKIN, LEVENTHAL and LOTT, JJ., concur.