Opinion
April 2, 1998
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.).
Defendant's assertions that plaintiffs caused her default on the subject mortgage are unsubstantiated and, indeed, it would appear that defendant's default occurred long before plaintiffs and their agents became involved in the instant matter. Moreover, but for vague allegations, defendant has failed to demonstrate any relevant connection between plaintiffs and the lender that ultimately refused to finance defendant's purchase of the mortgage in default. Nor, under the circumstances at bar, is there any ground for a defense predicated upon promissory estoppel since there is no evidence of a promise by plaintiffs upon which defendant relied to her detriment (Tri-Land Props. v. 115 W. 28th St. Corp., 238 A.D.2d 206). Accordingly, as plaintiffs made out a prima facie entitlement to a judgment of foreclosure and defendant did not in response come forward with evidence demonstrating the existence of material issues of fact respecting her liability upon the subject mortgage, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was properly granted (Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.