| Davey v Dolan |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 10514 [46 AD3d 854] |
| December 26, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Peter F. Davey, Appellant, v Kevin J. Dolan et al.,Defendants, and Mary R. Davey, Respondent. |
—[*1]
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the affirmation of the moving defendant's attorney wassufficient to support the motion for summary judgment as it was based upon his personalknowledge of the facts and was supported by documentary evidence (see Ellman v Village of Rhinebeck, 41AD3d 635, 636 [2007]; Krohn v Felix Indus., 302 AD2d 499, 500 [2003];Pantaleone v Viewmore Homes, 225 AD2d 599, 600 [1996]; Cerulean LandDevelopers Corp. v Colon Dev. Corp., 144 AD2d 615, 616 [1988]).
In opposition to the moving defendant's prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as amatter of law with respect to the causes of action alleging malicious prosecution, abuse ofprocess, and false arrest, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman vCity of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Furthermore, the evidence does not support theplaintiff's contention that the moving defendant committed perjury (see Matter of Commissioner of SocialServs. of Ulster County v Powell, 39 AD3d 946, 948 [2007]; Solomon v Solomon, 27 AD3d988, 990 [2006]).
In addition, the cause of action alleging fraud was barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see Xiao Yang Chen v Fischer, 6 NY3d94 [2005]; Boronow v Boronow, 71 NY2d 284 [1988]).[*2]
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Lifson and Balkin, JJ., concur.