Opinion
October 17, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff made a prima facie showing that he had been terminated without cause by the defendant and that he was, therefore, entitled to compensation pursuant to the terms of the parties' employment agreement. The affidavit of the defendant's general counsel, averring that the plaintiff had fraudulently induced the defendant to enter into the agreement does not, under the circumstances of this case, establish a viable defense (see, Matter of Mehta v. Mehta, 196 A.D.2d 842; see also, Crossland Sav. v. SOI Dev. Corp., 166 A.D.2d 495). Moreover, the defense counsel's averment that the plaintiff was terminated for cause is wholly conclusory and insufficient to raise a factual issue. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Rosenblatt, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.