Summary
finding affidavit by defendant's president stating "that it possessed a viable counterclaim" could not bar summary judgment because "the bald, conclusory assertions submitted in opposition to the motion were insufficient to demonstrate the existence of genuine issues of material fact"
Summary of this case from J-Bar Reinforcement Inc. v. Crest Hill Capital LLCOpinion
October 27, 1997
Appeals from Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint is granted and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for the entry of an appropriate judgment.
The plaintiff met its evidentiary burden of showing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by proving the existence of a promissory note and the defendant's default in its payment obligations thereunder ( see, Bennell Hanover Assocs. v. Neilson, 215 A.D.2d 710; Dvoskin v. Prinz, 205 A.D.2d 661; Mlcoch v. Smith, 173 A.D.2d 443). In opposition, the defendant submitted a conclusory affidavit by its president alleging, without any evidentiary support, that it possessed a viable counterclaim based upon allegations that certain building materials supplied by the plaintiff were defective and that issues of fact thus existed warranting the denial of the plaintiff's motion. However, contrary to the Supreme Court's conclusion, the bald; conclusory assertions submitted in opposition to the motion were insufficient to demonstrate the existence of genuine issues of material fact ( see, Bennell Hanover Assocs. v. Neilson, supra; Dvoskin v. Prinz, supra; Mlcoch v. Smith, supra; Northeast Small Bus. Inv. Corp. v. Waccabuc Investors, 90 A.D.2d 538).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Miller, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.