Opinion
June 29, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.),
Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The plaintiff made a prima facie showing that it was entitled to a judgment of foreclosure as a matter of law based on the fact that the appellants executed the loan documents and defaulted on the payments ( see, Fairfield Affiliates v. Rosenbaum, 232 A.D.2d 522; ICC Bridgeport Ltd. Partnership v. Primrose Dev. Corp., 221 A.D.2d 417). The burden then shifted to the appellants to demonstrate, by admissible evidence, that there were genuine issues of material fact which required a trial ( see, Union State Bank v. Blankfort, 222 A.D.2d 430, 431). The appellants' conclusory allegation that the plaintiff's predecessors in interest embezzled the tax escrow funds was insufficient, without more, to defeat summary judgment ( see, European Am. Bank v. Abramoff, 201 A.D.2d 611). Inasmuch as the appellants failed to sustain their burden, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the plaintiff.
We decline to reach the contention that the appellant Susan Krumholz was released from her mortgage obligations since that issue is raised for the first time on appeal ( see, Miller Org. v. Vasap Constr. Corp., 184 A.D.2d 763).
Although the appellants' remaining contentions are without merit, we find no basis to impose sanctions against them.
Bracken, J.P., Copertino, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.