Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The parties entered into a partnership agreement for the sole purpose of purchasing, maintaining, and selling a particular residential property. Documentary evidence establishes that each plaintiff contributed one half of the purchase price, and that the defendant was to reimburse them for his one-third share of the cost of the premises. The proof further establishes that the defendant failed to do so, and also failed to contribute his share of the maintenance costs of the property. In support of their motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs submitted several promissory notes signed by the defendant acknowledging his indebtedness to the plaintiffs. Since the plaintiffs demonstrated their entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifted to the defendant to demonstrate by admissible evidence the existence of a factual issue (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). The defendant relied solely on conclusory allegations unsupported by any documentary evidence which are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Capelin Assocs. v. Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 N.Y.2d 338; Fender v. Prescott, 101 A.D.2d 418, 425, affd 64 N.Y.2d 1077). In addition, the defendant's counterclaims were properly dismissed. Accordingly, we find summary judgment was properly granted in the plaintiffs' favor. Thompson, J.P., Eiber, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.