| Winter v Black |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04002 [95 AD3d 1208] |
| May 23, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Denise L. Winter, Respondent, v Kelly M. Black,Appellant. |
—[*1] Rappaport, Glass, Levine & Zullo, LLP (Alexander J. Wulwick, New York, N.Y., ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), dated June 1, 2011, which granted the plaintiff'smotion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion forsummary judgment on the issue of liability is denied.
To be entitled to summary judgment, the movant must make a prima facie showing ofentitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate anymaterial issues of fact from the case (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324[1986]). Failure to make such a prima facie showing requires denial of the motion, regardless ofthe sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64NY2d 851, 852 [1985]). On a motion for summary judgment, a "bare affirmation of an attorney,who demonstrates no personal knowledge of the matter, is unavailing and without evidentiaryvalue" (Bahlkow v Greenberg, 185 AD2d 829, 831 [1992]; see Zuckerman v City ofNew York, 49 NY2d 557, 563 [1980]; Mobil Oil Corp. v Penna, 139 AD2d 501[1988]).
On her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiff's argumentsregarding how the accident occurred were supported only by the affirmation of her attorney, whohad no personal knowledge of the facts. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff failed to make aprima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, her motion forsummary judgment should have been denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the oppositionpapers (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d at 324; Mackenzie v City of New York, 81AD3d 699, 700 [2011]; Todd vGodek, 71 AD3d 872, 873 [2010]; Gjokaj v Fox, 25 AD3d 759, 760 [2006]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in lightof our determination. Rivera, J.P., Belen, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.