Barry Levien, respondent, v Richard Allen, et al., appellants. (Index No. 5282/05) 2007-00274, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT 2008 NY Slip Op 5486; 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; Marinis v Scherr, 306 AD2d 448). The

defendants failed to controvert the evidence presented by the plaintiff (see

Lorenz Diversified Corp. v Falk, 44 AD3d 910). Furthermore, the defendants

failed to establish the affirmative defenses of lack of consideration (see 

Anand

v Wilson, 32 AD3d 808, 809; see generally Mencher v Weiss, 306 NY 1, 8) or 

usury

(cf. Hicki v Choice Cap. Corp., 264 AD2d 710, 711). 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;

J.L.B. Equities v Mind Over Money, Ltd., 261 AD2d 510).




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.