BRONSNICK v. Splash Enterprises, Inc., etc., et al., Defendants. (2006)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered January 4, 2005, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint against all defendants jointly and severally in the principal amount of $632,426.91, and referred the issue of attorneys' fees to a special referee, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to accelerated judgment on the note against all defendants “by virtue of a note and a failure to make payments called for therein” (Warburg, Pincus Equity Partners, L.P. v. O'Neill, 11 A.D.3d 327, 783 N.Y.S.2d 354 [2004];  see also DDS Partners, LLC v. Celenza, 6 A.D.3d 347, 348, 775 N.Y.S.2d 319 [2004] ).   Neither Randy nor Sheila Brisman “submit[ted] evidentiary proof sufficient to raise a triable issue with respect to the asserted defenses” so as to defeat the motion as to these defendants individually (Mariani v. Dyer, 193 A.D.2d 456, 457, 597 N.Y.S.2d 358 [1993], lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 658, 604 N.Y.S.2d 557, 624 N.E.2d 695 [1993] ).

Randy Brisman's bald, conclusory assertions that he did not receive the money and that the paid and uncollectible checks signed by him and submitted by plaintiff were payments for an unrelated obligation were unsubstantiated (see Moezinia v. Baroukhian, 247 A.D.2d 452, 453, 668 N.Y.S.2d 688 [1998] ), despite the court affording him additional time to produce such evidence.

Nor was Sheila Brisman's claim that she did not sign the note sufficient, as “[s]omething more than a bald assertion of forgery is required to create an issue of fact contesting the authenticity of a signature” (Banco Popular N. Am. v. Victory Taxi Mgt., 1 N.Y.3d 381, 384, 774 N.Y.S.2d 480, 806 N.E.2d 488 [2004] ).