Opinion
December 8, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Once the plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the defendant, as the party opposing the motion, had the burden of producing proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial ( see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). The defendant failed to present proof that the amounts claimed by the plaintiff as outstanding on the subject notes were inaccurate or improperly computed. Moreover, the defendant's affirmative defenses and counterclaims were insufficient to defeat the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in its favor (see, 12 U.S.C. § 1821, 1823). Under the circumstances of this case, we need not reach the issue of whether the Supreme Court's decision in O'Melveny Myers v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. ( 512 U.S. 79) has abrogated the Federal common law D'Oench doctrine ( see, D'Oench, Duhme Co. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 315 U.S. 447).
O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.