| Pennsylvania Higher Educ. Assistance Agency v Musheyev |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09010 [68 AD3d 736] |
| December 1, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency,Respondent, v Alexander N. Musheyev, Appellant. |
—[*1] Friesner & Salzman, Great Neck, N.Y. (Nadia Youkelsone of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover on a promissory note, the defendant appeals from an order of theSupreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), dated January 8, 2009, which, inter alia,granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on thecomplaint. The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law bysubmitting proof of the existence of the promissory note executed by the defendant and thedefendant's default in making payments pursuant to that note (see Verela v Citrus Lake Dev., Inc., 53AD3d 574, 575 [2008]; Levien vAllen, 52 AD3d 578 [2008]; Anand v Wilson, 32 AD3d 808 [2006]). In opposition, thedefendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense (see Quest Commercial, LLC v Rovner,35 AD3d 576 [2006]; Famolaro vCrest Offset, Inc., 24 AD3d 604 [2005]; Bank of N.Y. v Vega Tech. USA, LLC, 18 AD3d 678 [2005]).Contrary to the defendant's contention, his claim that the 2005 agreement resolving then-ongoinglitigation amended the terms of the promissory note is not supported by the evidence (see Raico v Concorde Funding Group,60 AD3d 834, 836 [2009]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Belen, Hall and Austin,JJ., concur.