SUPREME COURT  OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND
DEPARTMENT
2008 NY Slip  Op 5486; 52 A.D.3d 578; 860 N.Y.S.2d 174; 2008
N.Y. App.  Div. LEXIS 5409
June 10, 2008,  Decided
NOTICE:
THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS  DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF
THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION.  THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO
REVISION BEFORE  PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
COUNSEL: Rafael Declet, New York,  N.Y. (Gilbert Azafrani, pro hac vice, of
counsel), for  appellants.
Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., Garden City, N.Y.  (Kenneth Kirschenbaum 
and
Paul J. Tramontano of counsel), for  respondent.
JUDGES: ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, J.P., JOSEPH COVELLO, THOMAS A.  DICKERSON, 
RANDALL
T. ENG, JJ. SPOLZINO, J.P., COVELLO, DICKERSON and ENG,  JJ., concur.
OPINION
DECISION &  ORDER
In an action to recover on three promissory  notes, the defendants appeal from
a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau  County (Bucaria, J.), entered 
November
9, 2006, which, upon a decision of the  same court dated October 2, 2006, made
after a nonjury trial, is in favor of  the plaintiff and against them in the
principal sum of $  426,865.14.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with  costs.
The Supreme Court properly awarded judgment to  the plaintiff. The plaintiff
established a prima facie case by submitting  proof of the existence of the 
three
promissory notes and the defendants'  default on each note (see Lorenz
Diversified Corp. v Falk, 44 AD3d 910, 844  N.Y.S.2d 370; Marinis v Scherr, 
306
AD2d 448, 761 N.Y.S.2d 305). The  defendants failed to controvert the evidence
presented by the plaintiff (see  Lorenz Diversified Corp. v Falk, 44 AD3d 910,
844 N.Y.S.2d 370). Furthermore,  the defendants failed to establish the
affirmative defenses of lack of  consideration (see Anand v Wilson, 32 AD3d 
808,
809, 821 N.Y.S.2d 130; see  generally Mencher v Weiss, 306 NY 1, 8, 114 N.E.2d
177) or usury (cf. Hicki v  Choice Cap. Corp., 264 AD2d 710, 711, 694 N.Y.S.2d
750). The defendants also  failed to establish that the plaintiff converted 
the
loans to a capital  contribution (cf. Security Mut. Life Ins. Co. v Member
Servs., Inc., 46 AD3d  1077, 1078, 848 N.Y.S.2d 389; J.L.B. Equities v Mind 
Over
Money, Ltd., 261  AD2d 510, 691 N.Y.S.2d 65).
The defendants' remaining  contentions are either improperly raised for the
first time on appeal or  without merit.
SPOLZINO, J.P., COVELLO, DICKERSON and  ENG, JJ., concur.
SUPREME COURT  OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND
DEPARTMENT


2008 NY Slip  Op 5486; 52 A.D.3d 578; 860 N.Y.S.2d 174; 2008
N.Y. App.  Div. LEXIS 5409




June 10, 2008,  Decided


NOTICE:


THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS  DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF
THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION.  THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO
REVISION BEFORE  PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.


COUNSEL: Rafael Declet, New York,  N.Y. (Gilbert Azafrani, pro hac vice, of
counsel), for  appellants.


Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., Garden City, N.Y.  (Kenneth Kirschenbaum 
and
Paul J. Tramontano of counsel), for  respondent.


JUDGES: ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, J.P., JOSEPH COVELLO, THOMAS A.  DICKERSON, 
RANDALL
T. ENG, JJ. SPOLZINO, J.P., COVELLO, DICKERSON and ENG,  JJ., concur.


OPINION


DECISION &  ORDER


In an action to recover on three promissory  notes, the defendants appeal from
a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau  County (Bucaria, J.), entered 
November
9, 2006, which, upon a decision of the  same court dated October 2, 2006, made
after a nonjury trial, is in favor of  the plaintiff and against them in the
principal sum of $  426,865.14.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with  costs.


The Supreme Court properly awarded judgment to  the plaintiff. The plaintiff
established a prima facie case by submitting  proof of the existence of the 
three
promissory notes and the defendants'  default on each note (see Lorenz
Diversified Corp. v Falk, 44 AD3d 910, 844  N.Y.S.2d 370; Marinis v Scherr, 
306
AD2d 448, 761 N.Y.S.2d 305). The  defendants failed to controvert the evidence
presented by the plaintiff (see  Lorenz Diversified Corp. v Falk, 44 AD3d 910,
844 N.Y.S.2d 370). Furthermore,  the defendants failed to establish the
affirmative defenses of lack of  consideration (see Anand v Wilson, 32 AD3d 
808,
809, 821 N.Y.S.2d 130; see  generally Mencher v Weiss, 306 NY 1, 8, 114 N.E.2d
177) or usury (cf. Hicki v  Choice Cap. Corp., 264 AD2d 710, 711, 694 N.Y.S.2d
750). The defendants also  failed to establish that the plaintiff converted 
the
loans to a capital  contribution (cf. Security Mut. Life Ins. Co. v Member
Servs., Inc., 46 AD3d  1077, 1078, 848 N.Y.S.2d 389; J.L.B. Equities v Mind 
Over
Money, Ltd., 261  AD2d 510, 691 N.Y.S.2d 65).


The defendants' remaining  contentions are either improperly raised for the
first time on appeal or  without merit.


SPOLZINO, J.P., COVELLO, DICKERSON and  ENG, JJ., concur.