Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff succeeded in making a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851) by demonstrating the existence of the promissory note executed by the defendant, the unconditional terms of repayment, and the defendant's default thereunder (see, East N.Y. Sav. Bank v Baccaray, 214 A.D.2d 601; Beer Sheva Realty Corp. v Ponjnitayapanu, 214 A.D.2d 352; Silber v Muschel, 190 A.D.2d 727). The defendant's submission of only an affirmation of his attorney who had no personal knowledge of the facts was patently inadequate to oppose the motion, inasmuch as it did not constitute proof in admissible form (see generally, Beer Sheva Realty Corp. v Ponjnitayapanu, supra) and it was without evidentiary value (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). In any event, were we to consider the vague, conclusory, and unsubstantiated allegations made by the attorney, we would find them insufficient to establish a triable issue of fact (see, e.g., Beer Sheva Realty Corp. v Ponjnitayapanu, supra; Salrex Invs. v Slavin Sons, 214 A.D.2d 399; Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v RGB Intl. Prop., 214 A.D.2d 603; Murphy v Reardon, 211 A.D.2d 704). Furthermore, the defendant's claim that additional discovery is necessary is without merit (see generally, Meath v Mishrick, 68 N.Y.2d 992; Edwards v Terryville Meat Co., 178 A.D.2d 580). Accordingly, summary judgment was properly awarded in favor of the plaintiff. Balletta, J.P., Sullivan, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.