Opinion
September 17, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The defendant Selig Sussman, Inc., established its counterclaim as a matter of law by proof of the existence of the promissory notes and the nonpayment of each according to its terms (see, Marshall v. Colvin Motor Parts, 140 A.D.2d 673; National Westminster Bank v. Barrier Technology Corp., 131 A.D.2d 552). It was then incumbent upon the plaintiff to demonstrate, by admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Marshall v. Colvin Motor Parts, supra, at 674) and the plaintiff failed to do so. The plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and fraud amount to no more than unsubstantiated, conclusory assertions which were insufficient to defeat the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant Selig Sussman, Inc. (see, Ihmels v. Kahn, 126 A.D.2d 701; Blue Ridge Business Brokers v. Ros-Mar Club, 121 A.D.2d 492). Moreover, the failure of the plaintiff to complete discovery did not preclude the grant of summary judgment to that defendant (see, Chemical Bank v. PIC Motors Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 1023, 1026).
The plaintiff's motion for leave to renew his opposition to the motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, Patti v Patti, 146 A.D.2d 757, 758).
We find no merit to the plaintiff's remaining contentions. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.