Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff established his case as a matter of law through the production of the mortgage and unpaid note. The defendant was then required to assert any defenses which would raise a question of fact as to his default on the mortgage (see, LBV Props. v. Greenport Dev. Co., 188 A.D.2d 588; Metropolitan Distrib. Servs. v. DiLascio, 176 A.D.2d 312), such as "waiver by the mortgagee, or estoppel, or bad faith, fraud, oppressive or unconscionable conduct on the latter's part" (Nassau Trust Co. v. Montrose Concrete Prods. Corp., 56 N.Y.2d 175, 183). The defendant agreed to execute the note and mortgage as part of the stipulation of settlement of his matrimonial action. In his affidavit in opposition to the motion, the defendant claimed that he signed the note and mortgage under duress. However, those allegations were contradicted by his statements in open court during the stipulation colloquy. We find that the defendant's conclusory and unsubstantiated assertions were not supported by competent evidence and were insufficient to defeat the plaintiff's motion (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562; LBV Props. v. Greenport Dev. Co., supra; City of New York v. Grosfeld Realty Co., 173 A.D.2d 436).
We have not considered those allegations which are being raised by the defendant for the first time on appeal. Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.