| Flushing Sav. Bank, FSB v Sharp Realty, LLC |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 00671 [136 AD3d 652] |
| February 3, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Flushing Savings Bank, FSB,Respondent, v Sharp Realty, LLC, et al., Defendants, and Cie Sharp,Appellant. |
Cie Sharp, Huntington Station, NY, appellant pro se.
Lynch and Associates, New York, NY (H. Michael Lynch of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Cie Sharp appeals froman order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pfau, J.), dated July 3, 2013, which, interalia, granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on itscause of action to foreclose the mortgage.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law onits cause of action to foreclose the mortgage by submitting the mortgage, the underlyingunpaid note, and evidence of default (see Emigrant Funding Corp. v Agard, 121 AD3d 935, 936[2014]; Baron Assoc., LLC vGarcia Group Enters., Inc., 96 AD3d 793 [2012]). Accordingly, the burden thenshifted to the defendant Cie Sharp (hereinafter the appellant) to demonstrate theexistence of a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense to the action, such as waiver,estoppel, bad faith, fraud, or oppressive or unconscionable conduct on the part of theplaintiff (see IndependenceBank v Valentine, 113 AD3d 62, 64-65 [2013]; Mahopac Natl. Bank vBaisley, 244 AD2d 466, 467 [1997]).
Even when viewed in the light most favorable to the appellant (see EmigrantFunding Corp. v Agard, 121 AD3d at 936), his conclusory assertions in his affidavitsubmitted in opposition to the motion were not supported by competent evidence (seeNorth Fork Bank v Hamptons Mist Mgt. Corp., 225 AD2d 596, 597 [1996];Home Sav. Bank v Schorr Bros. Dev. Corp., 213 AD2d 512, 513 [1995]), andtherefore failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning his fraud defense (see Solomon v Burden, 104AD3d 839, 840 [2013]), or whether the plaintiff's conduct was unconscionable (see Baron Assoc., LLC v GarciaGroup Enters., Inc., 96 AD3d 793, 794 [2012]; New York Community Bank vParade Place, LLC, 96 AD3d 542, 543 [2012]; CFSC Capital Corp. XXVIIv Bachman Mech. Sheet Metal Co., 247 AD2d 502, 505 [1998]).
The parties' remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before thisCourt. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.