It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213 seeking to recover the amount due on a promissory note executed by defendant. Although plaintiff met its initial burden by submitting the note and evidence of defendant's default ( see LaMar v Vasile [appeal No. 4], 49 AD3d 1218; Di Marco v Bombard Car Co., Inc., 11 AD3d 960), defendant raised a triable issue of fact with respect to his defense of contract modification ( see generally Rose v Spa Realty Assoc, 42 NY2d 338, 343; Ford Motor Credit Co. v Sawdey, 286 AD2d 972, 973).