Opinion
February 22, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
We agree with the Supreme Court that no triable issues of fact exist (see, CPLR 3212). The defendants' contention that the plaintiff recovered possession of the leased equipment before obtaining a money judgment for payments due under the lease, which amounted to a security agreement (see, UCC 1-201 ; 9-102 [2]), is speculative and unsupported. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted to the plaintiff (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562; Rowland v. 1306 Realty Associated, 193 A.D.2d 726; Jones v. Gameray, 153 A.D.2d 550, 551).
We have considered the defendants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.