Opinion
April 24, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Balio, Boehm and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's application for a stay. Plaintiff established his entitlement to summary judgment on the promissory note and defendant failed to present evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562; Miracle Plywood Corp. v Nepperhan Realty Corp., 171 A.D.2d 847).
Defendant's counterclaims, which arise out of plaintiff's alleged conduct as an employee of defendant, are not sufficiently related to the action on the note to preclude summary judgment in plaintiff's favor (see, Logan v Williamson Co., 64 A.D.2d 466, 469-470, appeal dismissed 46 N.Y.2d 996; Santoiemmo v Syracuse Paper Twine Co., 52 A.D.2d 721, lv denied 39 N.Y.2d 709), and the record provides no reason to stay execution on plaintiff's judgment (see, Logan v Williamson Co., supra, at 470; cf., Marx v LaRouche, 152 A.D.2d 927).