North Fork Bank v. Hamptons Mist Management Corp.North Fork Bank v. Hamptons Mist Management Corp.
The plaintiff proved its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting in support of its motion proof of the promissory note and guaranty, and of the defendants’ failure to make the payments provided for by the terms of the note and guaranty (see, Governor & Co. v Dromoland Castle,
Moreover, while we agree that it was improper for the Supreme Court to hold that the April 24, 1991, release executed by the defendant Leonard Rosen in favor of the plaintiff served as a defense to all of the defendants’ counterclaims (see, A.F.L. Falck, S.p.A. v Karay Co.,
We have examined the defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.