Opinion
April 22, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.).
Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from.
Plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs.
On the motion for partial summary judgment, it was incumbent upon defendants to lay bare their proof and thereby show the existence of triable issues of fact ( Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; Friends of Animals v. Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065). Defendants have wholly failed to contradict the elements of plaintiffs' claim of loss under the valued jewelry policy. The mere unsubstantiated allegations of fraud by defense counsel are insufficient to defeat the summary judgment motion ( see, Spaulding v. Benenati, 57 N.Y.2d 418; Ehrlich v. American Moninger Greenhouse Mfg. Corp., 26 N.Y.2d 255). Moreover, we find that, since the police reports and other evidence in the case were equally available to all the parties, Special Term properly rejected defendants' argument that the salient facts were solely within plaintiffs' knowledge. Accordingly, we affirm. Mollen, P.J., O'Connor, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.