WEBSTER v. Rita Ross, respondent. (2010)

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for tortious interference with contract and trespass, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (O'Rourke, J.), dated June 18, 2008, which granted those branches of the motion of the defendant Rita Ross which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her and for summary judgment on her first counterclaim to recover on a promissory note, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered July 17, 2008, which, upon the order, is in favor of the defendant Rita Ross and against them, dismissing the complaint and awarding that defendant the principal sum of $31,499.32 on the first counterclaim.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed;  and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647).   The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501[a][1] ).

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Rita Ross which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.   In response to Ross' prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572).

Further, Ross was entitled to summary judgment on her first counterclaim to recover on the promissory note.   She established both the existence of a promissory note executed by the plaintiffs and their nonpayment according to its terms.   Therefore, she demonstrated entitlement to judgment on the balance due (see Simoni v. Time-Line, Ltd., 272 A.D.2d 537, 538, 708 N.Y.S.2d 142;  Elmsford-Interstate Bldg. Material Corp. v. Elm Ridge Mgt., 243 A.D.2d 675, 664 N.Y.S.2d 576;  Ihmels v. Kahn, 126 A.D.2d 701, 511 N.Y.S.2d 306 [1987] ).   It was then incumbent upon the plaintiffs to demonstrate, by admissible evidence, “the existence of a triable issue with respect to a bona fide defense” (Colonial Commercial Corp. v. Breskel Assoc., 238 A.D.2d 539, 539, 657 N.Y.S.2d 940;  see Simoni v. Time-Line Ltd., 272 A.D.2d 537, 708 N.Y.S.2d 142).   They failed to provide such evidence.

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.