3Assn. TR U/S 6/01/98 [Home Equity Loan Trust 1998-2] v Alvarez,49 AD3d 711 ).Plaintiff has submitted, among other things, a copy of themortgage and note executed by defendants Haley, and affidavits ofMargie Kwiatanowski, an assistant vice-president of plaintiff, andJohn Kerr, a self-described “Limited Signing Officer” of GMACMORTGAGE LLC, the servicing agent for plaintiff, attesting to adefault in payment thereunder on January 1, 2007. Plaintiff,therefore, has established a prima facie case of entitlement tojudgment against defendants Haley as a matter of law (see EMCMortgage Corp. v Riverdale Associates, 291 AD2d 370 ;Republic Natl. Bank of N.Y. v Zito, 280 AD2d 657, 658 ; seealso IMC Mtge. Co. v Griggs, 289 AD2d 294 ; Paterson vRodney, 285 AD2d 453 ). The burden shifts to defendantsHaley to raise a triable issue of fact regarding their defenses(see Barcov Holding Corp. v Bexin Realty Corp., 16 AD3d 282 ;EMC Mtge. Corp. v Riverdale Assoc., 291 AD2d 370 ;First Nationwide Bank, FSB v Goodman, 272 AD2d 433 ).Defendants Haley oppose the motion arguing that plaintiff’sforeclosure claim and their affirmative defenses and counterclaimsare interwoven so as to preclude plaintiff’s entitlement to summaryjudgment. Defendants Haley offer their respective affidavits,indicating that they contacted a mortgage broker seeking torefinance their existing mortgage loan. They sought to pay off atotal of $100,000.00 in accumulated medical bills and credit carddebt. Defendants Haley state the mortgage broker informed themthat their house had been appraised for $780,000.00, and plaintiffwould approve a mortgage loan in the principal amount of$624,000.00. Defendants Haley indicate that they inquiredregarding the other terms of the loan, but did not receiveany additional information, and attended the loan’s closing onOctober 4, 2006, not knowing any term or condition, other than theprincipal amount. Defendants Haley aver they were unrepresented bycounsel at the closing. They further aver they were not providedwith copies of the loan documents which they signed at the closing,but were told by the attorney representing plaintiff that thecopies would arrive thereafter by mail. Defendants Haley statethey first learned of the actual amount of the monthly mortgageinstallment payment when they received, after closing, a noticefrom plaintiff indicating the amount was $5,700.00, and that suchamount would increase to $6,400.00 after three years, and adjustevery six months thereafter. Defendants Haley state that the newmonthly installment amount was almost twice their former one, andthat they were unable to make such payments, and did not knowinglyagree to pay them.