Opinion
May 30, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
We agree with the plaintiff that the promissory note sued on was an instrument for the payment of money only within the meaning of CPLR 3213 (see, Seaman-Andwall Corp. v Wright Mach. Corp., 31 A.D.2d 136, 137, affd 29 N.Y.2d 617; N M Plumbing Heating Corp. v Cenacle Props., 171 A.D.2d 653). In support of its motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint (see, CPLR 3213), the plaintiff established prima facie its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by producing the promissory note executed by the parties and demonstrating that the defendant had defaulted thereon (see, Silber v Muschel, 190 A.D.2d 727; Mlcoch v Smith, 173 A.D.2d 443, 444). The defendant failed to deny that her signature on the note is not genuine, and, thus, she is precluded from challenging it (see, CPLR 3015 [d]; Marine Midland Bank v Mattioli, 180 A.D.2d 406).
To preclude the plaintiff from enforcing the terms of the note, it became incumbent upon the defendant to establish, by admissible evidence, that a triable issue of fact existed (see, Brown Plastics Mach. v Rolex Plastics, 191 A.D.2d 537; Silber v Muschel, supra, 190 A.D.2d, at 728; Faustini v Darth Provisions Co., 131 A.D.2d 809, 810). Although the defendant alleged that there were valid affirmative defenses, including fraud in the inducement and lack of consideration, those allegations amounted to no more than unsupported, conclusory assertions which were not sufficient to defeat the motion (see, Bank Leumi Trust Co. v Rattet Liebman, 182 A.D.2d 541; Green v Darwish, 171 A.D.2d 644, 645; Fidelity N.Y. v Hanover Cos., 148 A.D.2d 577; Ihmels v Kahn, 126 A.D.2d 701, 702).
We find that the branches of the defendant's cross motion which were for a stay of the action or a stay of the enforcement of a judgment in the instant action were properly denied. There was no identity of issues (see, Hope's Windows v Albro Metal Prods. Corp., 93 A.D.2d 711) or of parties, in a related Federal action (see, Abrams v Xenon Indus., 145 A.D.2d 362; Glatzer v Scappatura, 99 A.D.2d 505) which would warrant the granting of a stay. The defendant's unsubstantiated allegations that the general partner of the plaintiff partnership was dominated and controlled by the defendants in the Federal action were insufficient to establish an identity of issues or parties (see, CPLR 2201, 3211 [a] [4]). Miller, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.