In an action to recover on a promissory note, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), entered June 28, 1996, which denied his motion for summary judgment, and granted the defendants' cross motion to consolidate this action with an action entitled Breskel Assocs. v. Korn pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the cross motion is denied.
In this action to recover on a promissory note, the plaintiff established a prima facie case by submitting proof of the note and the defendants' default ( see, Bank of N.Y. v. Sterlington Common Assocs., 235 A.D.2d 448; Falco v. Thorne, 225 A.D.2d 582; Silber v. Muschel, 190 A.D.2d 727; Mlcoch v. Smith, 173 A.D.2d 443). It was then incumbent on the defendants to come forward with proof of evidentiary facts showing the existence of a triable issue with respect to a bona fide defense ( see, Gateway State Bank v. Shangri-La Private Club for Women, 113 A.D.2d 791, affd 67 N.Y.2d 627; Silber v. Muschel, supra). Here, the defendants' allegations of fraud consisted of conclusory allegations which were insufficient to defeat the plaintiff's showing ( see, TPZ Corp. v. Rigakos, 226 A.D.2d 445; Parisi Enters. Profit Sharing Trust v. Settimo, 198 A.D.2d 272; Bank Leumi Trust Co. v. Rattet Liebman, 182 A.D.2d 541). Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should have been granted.
In light of our determination, the appeal by the defendants from the denial of their cross motion to consolidate the instant action with a prior action commenced by the defendants against the plaintiff is academic.
The remaining contentions lack merit. Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.
Comments