Case ID: ad2d_260/html/0344-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Duke and Company, Respondent, v Craig Lesczcak, Appellant.
    [686 NYS2d 308]
   —In an action to recover on a promissory note brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated March 13, 1998, which granted the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint was properly granted. The plaintiff established its claim as a matter of law by proof of the promissory note and the defendant’s failure to pay. The defendant did not demonstrate, by admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, European Am. Bank v Strab Constr. Corp., 196 AD2d 479, 480; Bosio v Selig, 165 AD2d 822). The defendant’s claim of payment, as well as his defense of duress, were unsubstantiated by admissible evidence. S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.