Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint is granted.
The plaintiff insurer established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the complaint by submitting the subject insurance policy, the audit statement, and the affidavit of the plaintiff's accounts receivable and collections manager. These submissions demonstrated that, pursuant to an audit and revised audit, which were conducted after expiration of the policy in accordance with the terms of the policy, the defendant owed an additional $134,550 in premiums (see Evanston Ins. Co. v Po Wing Hong Food Mkt., Inc., 21 A.D.3d 333 ; cf. Essex Ins. Co. v Laruccia Constr., Inc., 71 A.D.3d 818 ; Safeguard Ins. Co. v Tetz & Sons, 271 A.D.2d 516 ). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
To the extent that the defendant argues that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was premature, this contention is without merit. A party contending that a motion for summary judgment is premature is required to demonstrate that
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint.