Plaintiff has applied, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for and order granting summary judgment and attorney’s fees and costs and dismissing Defendants’ counterclaims. This action arises out of a commercial loan transaction between Plaintiff and Defendant, Eye Catch Trading, Inc., the repayment of which was guaranteed by both Eye Catch Trading, Inc., and Defendant, Issac Freund (the “Loan”). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s submission, including, inter alia, the Summons and Complaint, Defendants’ Answer, and Plaintiff’s bank records related to Defendants’ account1, and has determined that Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to the relief requested. Accordingly, the burden has shifted to Defendants to submit evidentiary proof in admissible form to demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment (Villager Construction, Inc. v. J. Kozel & Son, Inc., 222 AD2d 1018 [4th Dept 1995] ). Defendants’ Twenty-Third Affirmative Defense and First Counterclaim seeks dismissal of the Complaint based upon Plaintiff’s alleged “predatory lending practices” (Answer, 34; NYSCEF Doc. No. 10). However, Defendants have failed to submit any evidence in admissible form to substantiate this claim. For instance, there is no evidence that Plaintiff received a kickback because of the Loan, or that Plaintiff bundled the Loan with unnecessary products; nor is there any evidence of unlawful steering or targeting. On the contrary, Defendants approached Plaintiff to seek financing. Defendants’ Twenty-Fourth Affirmative Defense and Second Counterclaim alleges that Plaintiff violated the disclosure requirements of the Truth in Lending Act (15 USC §1601, et seq.) by, inter alia, failing to disclose the amount financed and the finance charges (Answer,
37-46; NYSCEF Doc. No. 10). However, this affirmative defense is meritless, because §1603 does not apply to the Loan (see 12 CFR 226.3 [section 1603 does not apply to extensions of credit for a "business" or "commercial" purpose]). Defendants’ Twenty-Fifth Affirmative Defense and Third Counterclaim alleges that Plaintiff violated the Deceptive Practices Act, as set forth in §349 of the General Business Law (Answer,
