Mahopac National Bank v. Baisley

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property, the

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff bank sustained its initial burden of demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof of the existence of the mortgage and the appellants’ default in payment (see, Home Sav. Bank v Schorr Bros. Dev. Corp., 213 AD2d 512 ; Zitel Corp. v Fonar Corp., 210 AD2d 221 ). Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the appellants to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense to the action, such as waiver, estoppel, bad faith, fraud, or oppressive or unconscionable conduct on the part of the plaintiff (see, Nassau Trust Co. v Montrose Concrete Prods. Corp., 56 NY2d 175 , 183; Pellicane v Norstar Bank, 213 AD2d 610 ). Here, the appellants’ submissions in opposition to summary judgment, even when viewed in the light most favorable to them (see, Fleet Mtge. Corp. v Rebich, 227 AD2d 518 ), were insufficient to show the existence of genuine factual issues relating to a bona fide defense to foreclosure. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.