| Morreale v Serrano |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07992 [67 AD3d 655] |
| November 4, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Michael Morreale, Appellant, v Lisa Serrano,Respondent. |
—[*1] Lisa Serrano, Effort, Pennsylvania, respondent pro se.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, theplaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), datedNovember 19, 2008, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on thecomplaint, inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden of establishing, byadmissible evidence, his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarezv Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). To the extent that the plaintiff relied on thedefendant's response to his notice to admit, that notice improperly sought the defendant'sadmissions to facts that went to "the heart of the matter" (Lolly v Brookdale Univ. Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 45 AD3d 537 [2007];see Glasser v City of New York, 265 AD2d 526 [1999]). In light of our determination,we need not examine the sufficiency of the papers submitted by the defendant in opposition tothe motion (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Fisher, Belen andAustin, JJ., concur.