Appeal by plaintiff from so much of a judgment of the Civil Court, Kings County (L. Baily-Schiffman, J.), entered on December 30, 2003, after trial, as dismissed plaintiff's action.

Judgment insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed without costs and judgment directed to be entered in favor of plaintiff awarding him the principal sum of $22,000 plus interest.

In this action to recover on a promissory note, plaintiff established a prima facie case by proof of the promissory note signed by defendants and defendants' failure to make payments thereunder (see Vernon v Winikoff, 182 AD2d 753 [1992]). Contrary to the finding of the court below, defendants did not establish that the promissory note was procured through duress by means of a wrongful threat which precluded the exercise of their free will (see Austin Instrument v Loral Corp., 29 NY2d 124, 130 [1971]). While it is alleged that plaintiff improperly refused to turn over the keys to the premises at the closing, this does not, by itself, constitute duress (see Austin Instrument, 29 NY2d at 130-131). We note that the record establishes that defendants were represented by counsel at all relevant times. [*2]
Decision Date: December 22, 2004