MARCO v. BOMBARD CAR CO., INC

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Bombard Car Co., Inc. (defendant) for summary judgment on its counterclaim to recover the amount due on a promissory note executed by plaintiff, along with interest and "the reasonable costs of collection, including reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,017.50." Defendant met its initial burden by submitting proof of the note and plaintiff's default, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to his defense of lack of consideration ( see A. Bella Food Corp. v. Luigi's Italian Deli, 243 AD2d 592; Falco v. Thorne, 225 AD2d 582, 583 [1996]). The note, which is "clear, complete and unambiguous" on its face ( Fleet Bank of N.Y. v. Rozanski, 216 AD2d 938, 938, lv denied 87 NY2d 804), recites that it was executed for value received ( see Friends Lbr. v. Cornell Dev. Corp., 243 AD2d 886, 886-887; cf. Mastro v. Carroll, 296 AD2d 802, 802-803), and the record establishes that plaintiff received consideration, i.e., a 50% share in one company and the option to purchase a 50% share of another company, both of which were formed in connection with the acquisition of an automobile dealership ( see Low v. Ngan Fung Chum, 261 AD2d 337).