bona fide defense in New York

2025Bank v Baisley, 244 AD2d 466, 467 [2d Dept 1997]).

2017Bank v Baisley, 244 AD2d 466, 467 [1997]).

2026Once the plaintiff submits evidence establishing these elements, "the burden shifts to the defendant to establish, by admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue with respect to a bona fide defense" ( Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A. v Navarro , 25 NY3d 485, 492 (2015)).

2026Branch v Navarro , 25 NY3d 485, 492 [2015]); thereafter, the burden shifts to the defendant/guarantor to establish, by admissible evidence, "the existence of a triable issue with respect to a bona fide defense" ( Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A., "Robabank Intl.," N.Y.

2024Once the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, “the burden then shifts to the defendant to submit evidence establishing the existence of a triable issue with respect to a bona fide defense” (Porat v Rybina, 177 AD3d 632 , 632 [2d Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Jin Sheng He v Sing Huei Chang, 83 AD3d 788, 789 [2d Dept 2011]). 651303/2023 ANCART, HAROLD vs.

2024Once a plaintiff has established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, "the burden then shifts to the defendant to submit evidence establishing the existence of a triable issue with respect to a bona fide defense" ( Jin Sheng He v Sing Huei Chang , 83 AD3d 788, 789 [2011]).

2019Through the foregoing proof, plaintiff demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, thereby shifting the burden to defendants "to raise a question of fact as to a bona fide defense to foreclosure" ( Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Alling , 141 AD3d 916, 918 [2016]; see Charter One Bank, FSB v Leone , 45 AD3d 958, 958 [2007]).

2017We conclude that plaintiff supported its motion with the requisite proof to establish its entitlement to summary judgment and, therefore, the burden shifted to defendants to raise a question of fact as to a bona fide defense to foreclosure (see Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Alling, 141 AD3d 916, 918 [2016]; HSBC Bank USA v Merrill, 37 AD3d 899, 900 [2007], lv dismissed 8 NY3d 967 [2007]).

2026The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the motion which was for [*2] summary judgment on the complaint. "'Once the plaintiff submits evidence establishing its prima facie case' on a cause of action to recover on either a note or a guaranty, 'the burden then shifts to the defendants to submit evidence establishing the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense'" ( Kwok Ching Cheung v Sunrise Plaza, LLC , 237 AD3d 799, 801, quoting Griffon V, LLC v 11 E. 36th, LLC , 90 AD3d 705, 707).

2026The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the motion which was for [*2] summary judgment on the complaint. "'Once the plaintiff submits evidence establishing its prima facie case' on a cause of action to recover on either a note or a guaranty, 'the burden then shifts to the defendants to submit evidence establishing the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense'" ( Kwok Ching Cheung v Sunrise Plaza, LLC , 237 AD3d 799, 801, quoting Griffon V, LLC v 11 E. 36th, LLC , 90 AD3d 705, 707).

2025Thereafter, the "burden shifts to the defendant to establish, by admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue with respect to a bona fide defense" ( Navarro , 25 NY3d at 492 , quoting Cutter Bayview Cleaners, Inc. v Spotless Shirts, Inc. , 57 AD3d 708, 710 [2d Dept 2008]).

2025Thereafter, the "burden shifts to the defendant to establish, by admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue with respect to a bona fide defense" ( Navarro , 25 NY3d at 492 , quoting Cutter Bayview Cleaners, Inc. v Spotless Shirts, Inc. , 57 AD3d 708, 710 [2d Dept 2008]).

2019It was then incumbent on the defendant to come forward with proof of evidentiary facts showing the existence of a triable issue with respect to a bona fide defense ( see Estate of Hansraj v Sukhu , 145 AD3d 755, 755-756 ; Von Fricken v Schaefer , 118 AD3d 869, 870 ; Gateway State Bank v Shangri-La Private Club for Women , 113 AD2d 791, 791-792 , affd 67 NY2d 627 ).

2008In response, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense (see Gateway State Bank v Shangri-La Private Club for Women, 113 AD2d 791, 792 [1985], affd 67 NY2d 627 [1986]; Seaman-Andwall Corp. v Wright Mach.

2019With the burden having been shifted, "it was incumbent upon defendant[s] to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense" ( Maikels v Albany Broadcasting Co. , 248 AD2d at 916 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Coneco Corp. v Atlantic Energy Servs., Inc. , 270 AD2d 691, 693 [2000]; Lavelle v Urbach, Kahn & Werlin , 198 AD2d 751, 751 [1993]).

2007Once a plaintiff has made this showing, the defendant must demonstrate the existence of a bona fide defense sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see Lavelle v Urbach, Kahn & Werlin, 198 AD2d 751, 751 [1993]; Abacus Real Estate Fin.

2010Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the defendants to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense to the action (see State Bank of Albany v Fioravanti, 51 NY2d 638, 647 [1980]; Republic Natl.

2009Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the defendants to demonstrate, by admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense (see State Bank of Albany v Fioravanti, 51 NY2d 638, 647 [1980]; Naugatuck Sav.

2020Once the plaintiff has established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, "the burden then shifts to the defendant to submit evidence establishing the existence of a triable issue with respect to a bona fide defense" ( Jin Sheng He v Sing Huei Chang , 83 AD3d 788, 789 ; see Porat v Rybina , 177 AD3d at 632; Quest Commercial, LLC v Rovner , 35 AD3d 576 ).

2016Once a plaintiff makes such a showing, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish by admissible evidence the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense ( see American Realty Corp. of NY v Sukhu , 90 AD3d 792, 793 [2011]; Jin Sheng He v Sing Huei Chang , 83 AD3d 788, 789 [2011]; Quest Commercial, LLC v Rovner , [*2] 35 AD3d 576, 576 [2006]).

2011Once Chase established its prima facie entitlement to judg ment as a matter of law, “[t]he burden then shifted to the defendant [s] to establish by admissible evidence the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense” (Gullery v Imburgio, 74 AD3d at 1022 ; see Verela v Citrus Lake Dev., Inc., 53 AD3d at 575 ).

2011“The burden then shifted to the defendants] to establish by admissible evidence the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense” (Gullery v Imburgio, 74 AD3d at 1022 ; see Verela v Citrus Lake Dev., Inc., 53 AD3d at 575 ; Hestnar v Schetter, 284 AD2d at 500 ; Quest Commercial, LLC v Rovner, 35 AD3d at 576 ; J.A.

2019The burden therefore shifts to defendants to raise a triable issue of fact regarding a bona fide defense ( see Craven , 71 AD3d at 1223 ; Couch White , 286 AD2d at 527 ; Judarl v Cycletech , Inc. , 246 AD2d 736, 737 [3d Dept 1998]).

2014In opposition thereto, defendants failed to “come forward with evidentiary proof showing the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense of the note” (Judarl v Cycletech, Inc., 246 AD2d 736, 737 [1998]; see Ring v Jones, 13 AD3d 1078, 1078 [2004]).

2018Corp. , 243 AD2d 886, 887 [1997]).

2001Corp., 243 AD2d 886 , supra). * Consequently, on this record, we find that defendant has presented proof of the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense against the note which would preclude summary judgment (see, Lavelle v Urbach, Kahn & Werlin, supra).

2025"Once the plaintiff establishes its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish, by admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue with respect to a bona fide defense" ( Cutter Bayview Cleaners, Inc. v Spotless Shirts, Inc. , 57 AD3d at 710 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Banco Popular N. Am. v Victory Taxi Mgt. , 1 NY3d 381, 383 ).

2025"Once the plaintiff establishes its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish, by admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue with respect to a bona fide defense" ( Cutter Bayview Cleaners, Inc. v Spotless Shirts, Inc. , 57 AD3d at 710 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Banco Popular N. Am. v Victory Taxi Mgt. , 1 NY3d 381, 383).

2023In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense to nonpayment ( see Margarella v Ullian , 164 AD3d at 899; Castle Restoration & Constr., Inc. v Castle Restoration, LLC , 122 AD3d 789, 790 ).

2019In opposition to the plaintiff's prima facie showing, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense ( see Castle Restoration & Constr., Inc. v Castle Restoration, LLC , 122 AD3d 789, 790 ; Rachmany v Regev , 115 AD3d 840, 841 ; Gullery v Imburgio , 74 AD3d 1022 ).

2019In opposition, the defendant failed to "satisfy his burden of establishing the existence of a triable issue of fact by submitting admissible evidence of a bona fide defense to nonpayment" ( Rachmany v Regev , 115 AD3d 840, 841 ; see Castle Restoration & Constr., Inc. v Castle Restoration, LLC , 122 AD3d 789, 790 ; New York Community Bank v Fessler , 88 AD3d 667 ; Cutter Bayview Cleaners, Inc. v Spotless Shirts, Inc. , 57 AD3d 708, 709-710 ).

2019In opposition to the plaintiff's prima facie showing, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense ( see Castle Restoration & Constr., Inc. v Castle Restoration, LLC , 122 AD3d 789, 790 ; Rachmany v Regev , 115 AD3d 840, 841 ; Gullery v Imburgio , 74 AD3d 1022 ).

2025Hence, the burden now shifts to Guarantors to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense ( see Zyskind , 101 AD3d at 551).

2025Hence, the burden now shifts to Guarantors to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense ( see Zyskind , 101 AD3d at 551).

2020Once the plaintiff has made such a showing, the burden then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate "the existence of a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense to the action" ( Baron Assoc., LLC v Garcia Group Enters., Inc. , 96 AD3d 793 , 793; see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cohen , 80 AD3d 753, 755 ; Rose v Levine , 52 AD3d 800, 801 ).

2016“The burden [thus] shift [ed] to the defendant to demonstrate ‘the existence of a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense to the action’ ” (Rose v Levine, 52 AD3d 800, 801 [2008]; see Ekelmann Group, LLC, 108 AD3d at 1099 ), and defendant failed to meet that burden.

2019The burden therefore shifts to defendants to raise a triable issue of fact regarding a bona fide defense ( see Craven , 71 AD3d at 1223 ; Couch White , 286 AD2d at 527 ; Judarl v Cycletech , Inc. , 246 AD2d 736, 737 [3d Dept 1998]).

2007As these facts are undisputed and the note is not ambiguous, plaintiffs are entitled to judgment (see Coneco Corp. v Atlantic Energy Servs., 270 AD2d 691, 693 [2000]), unless defendants can “prove the existence of a triable issue of fact in the form of a bona fide defense against the note” (Couch White v Kelly, 286 AD2d 526, 527 [2001]; see Waehner v Northwest Bay Partners, Ltd., 30 AD3d 799, 800-801 [2006]).

2013Corp., 56 NY2d 175, 183 [1982]; Solomon v Burden, 104 AD3d at 839 ).

2013Corp., 56 NY2d 175, 183 [1982]; Solomon v Burden, 104 AD3d at 839 ).

2020Once the plaintiff has made such a showing, the burden then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate "the existence of a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense to the action" ( Baron Assoc., LLC v Garcia Group Enters., Inc. , 96 AD3d 793 , 793; see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cohen , 80 AD3d 753, 755 ; Rose v Levine , 52 AD3d 800, 801 ).

2017The defendant’s submissions in opposition were insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense to the action (see Baron Assoc., LLC v Garcia Group Enters., Inc., 96 AD3d at 793).

2025Where a plaintiff establishes prima facie entitlement to judgment, the burden then shifts to the defendant to raise a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense to the action (CitiMortgage, Inc. v Guillermo, 143 AD3d 852, 853 [2d Dept 2016]; Mahopac Natl.

2020Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, he failed to raise 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 M & T Bank v Capolino , 168 AD3d 1045 , 1047; CitiMortgage, Inc. v Guillermo , 143 AD3d 852, 853 ).

2020However, in opposition to the plaintiff's prima facie showing, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact with respect to the bona fide defense of lack of consideration for the note ( see Samet v Binson , 79 AD3d 1005, 1005-1006 ; Mastro v Carroll , 296 AD2d 802, 802-803 ; Cafaro v Squitieri , 290 AD2d 472 ).

2014The lack of consideration for a note is a bona fide defense to payment thereof (see Samet v Binson, 79 AD3d 1005 [2010]; Mastro v Carroll, 296 AD2d 802 [2002]; Cafaro v Squitieri, 290 AD2d 472 [2002]; Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v L.N.