Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff Citibank, N.A. established its claim as a matter of law by proof of the existence of the promissory note and the nonpayment of the note (see, Bosio v Selig, 165 A.D.2d 822). It was then incumbent upon the defendant to demonstrate, by admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). This the defendant failed to do. The defendant's claim that, before he executed the note, Citibank, N.A. orally agreed not to call in the loan for a certain period of time, contradicts the express terms of the note, which state that the defendant shall make payment on "demand", and cannot serve to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see, Braten v Bankers Trust Co., 60 N.Y.2d 155, 162). The defendant's unsubstantiated and conclusory claim that Citibank, N.A. caused the default is similarly insufficient to defeat the motion (see, Bosio v Selig, supra).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Santucci, JJ., concur.