Opinion
July 8, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants' claim that the agreement sued upon is not an instrument for the payment of money only pursuant to CPLR 3213 is not preserved for appellate review since it was not raised in the Supreme Court (see, Abacus Real Estate Fin. Co. v P.A.R. Constr. Maintenance Corp., 115 A.D.2d 576, 577). In any event, the agreement, which provided for the unconditional payment of specified sums over a stated time period, did qualify for summary judgment treatment pursuant to CPLR 3213 (see, Gittleson v Dempster, 148 A.D.2d 578, 579; Seaman-Andwall Corp. v Wright Mach. Corp., 31 A.D.2d 136, 137, affd 29 N.Y.2d 617).
The defendants' contentions with regard to their alleged defenses of lack of consideration, duress and fraudulent misrepresentations, which were not supported by specific factual details, were insufficient to justify the denial of the plaintiff's motion. Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.