Opinion
August 14, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J., Colabella, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated March 15, 1994, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
The promissory note in question was clearly an instrument for the payment of money only within the meaning of CPLR 3213. The notations on the back of the note did not alter the defendant's unambiguous obligation to pay (see, Gittleson v. Dempster, 148 A.D.2d 578, 579; cf., Tradition N. Am. v. Sweeney, 133 A.D.2d 53), and the evidence submitted by the defendant, both in his original opposition to the plaintiff's motion and in support of his motion to renew, was insufficient to raise triable issues of fact regarding his defenses of payment and lack of consideration (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). Moreover, any claim that the plaintiff's decedent withdrew more than his share of compensation from the corporation of which he and the defendant were the sole shareholders may be brought as a derivative action on behalf of the corporation and is not a defense to the personal obligation imposed by the promissory note (see, Business Corporation Law § 720; Abrams v. Donati, 66 N.Y.2d 951; Harris v. Miller, 136 A.D.2d 603). The plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to an accelerated judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213. Copertino, J.P., Santucci, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.