Jacqueline Singotiko, respondent, v J. Bradford Kenealy, appellant. v. << (2011)

Submitted—October 24, 2011

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover on two promissory notes, brought by a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), entered January 25, 2010, which granted the motion and directed the entry of a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $247,733.34.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213 based on two promissory notes.   The plaintiff met her burden of establishing that the defendant executed the two notes and defaulted in making payments according to their terms (see Larry Lawrence IRA v. Exeter Holding Ltd., 84 AD3d 1175, 1176;  Jin Sheng He v. Sing Huei Chang, 83 AD3d 788, 789;  Cutter Bayview Cleaners, Inc. v Spotless Shirts, Inc., 57 AD3d 708, 709).   In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Levien v. Allen, 52 AD3d 578;  Lorenz Diversified Corp. v. Falk, 44 AD3d 910;  Anand v. Wilson, 32 AD3d 808, 810).   Moreover, while the defendant alleged the existence of several counterclaims, he failed to show that the counterclaims were related to, much less intertwined with, the subject promissory notes (see Lorber v. Morovati, 83 AD3d 799, 800;  Neuhaus v. McGovern, 293 A.D.2d 727, 728;  Harris v. Miller, 136 A.D.2d 603).

SKELOS, J.P., BALKIN, LEVENTHAL and LOTT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court