Opinion
September 24, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.).
At the time of the motion leading to the determination on appeal, the only genuine issue of fact was whether or not defendant's signature on a promissory note was forged. In order to raise a question of fact on the issue defendant was required to produce evidentiary facts in support of his claim (see, State Bank v McAuliffe, 97 A.D.2d 607, 608, appeal dismissed 61 N.Y.2d 758). Defendant's sole submission was an affidavit of an expert who expressly reached no conclusion to counter the opinion of the plaintiffs' expert that the signature was genuine. It does not suffice to state that the defendant's expert did not have the original exemplars that plaintiffs' expert had compared with the note. The IAS Court's May, 1990 order required plaintiffs to provide the original of the note only, and nothing precluded the defendant from providing his own expert with new exemplars. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted.
We have considered defendant's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Kupferman, Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.