Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing the existence of a promissory note executed by the defendant, that the defendant was individually liable on the note, and that the defendant defaulted in making payments pursuant to the note ( see Pennsylvania Higher Educ. Assistance Agency v Musheyev, 68 AD3d 736; Verela v Citrus Lake Dev., Inc., 53 AD3d 574, 575; Famolaro v Crest Offset, Inc., 24 AD3d 604, 604-605; Hestnar v Schetter, 284 AD2d 499, 500). The burden then shifted to the defendant to establish by admissible evidence the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense ( see Quest Commercial, LLC v Rovner, 35 AD3d 576; Bank of N.Y. v Vega Tech. USA, LLC, 18 AD3d 678, 679).
The defendant's claims that there was a lack of full consideration for the loan and that he made partial payment toward the loan were merely unsupported conclusory allegations which were insufficient to defeat the plaintiffs motion ( see Hestnar v Schetter, 284 AD2d at 500-501; MDJR Enters, v LaTorre, 268 AD2d 509, 510). The defendant's additional claim that he was not individually liable on the note that he signed as "Steven Imburgio, [doing business as] Wheel Concept 3" was unsupported by any evidence that Wheel Concept 3 is organized as a limited liability corporation or that the defendant signed the note in a representative capacity ( see Republic Natl. Bank of N.Y. v GSO Inc., 177 AD2d 417, 418; cf. Gottehrer v Viet-Hoa Co., 170 AD2d 648).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the plaintiff was entitled to bring the motion without a prior demand as the note did not contain any time for payment ( see UCC 3-108; First Natl. Bank of Waterloo v Story, 200 NY 346; Gross v Fruchter, 230 AD2d 710, 711).
Accordingly, since the defendant failed to demonstrate, by admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint was properly granted ( see Webster v Murray, 70 AD3d 674, 675; Colonial Commercial Corp. v Breskel Assoc., 238 AD2d 539; Seidman v Ungar, 246 AD2d 641, 642).
[Prior Case History: 2009 NY Slip Op 31681(U).]