Opinion
March 13, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Di Tucci, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
It is well established that on a motion for summary judgment, the court must determine whether the factual issues presented are genuine or unsubstantiated. Conclusory, general allegations that are unsupported by competent evidence are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, City of New York v. Grosfeld Realty Co., 173 A.D.2d 436). The affidavits submitted by the defendant in opposition to the plaintiff's prima facie showing of her entitlement to summary judgment set forth mere conclusions concerning alleged agreements not incorporated into the contract rather than the documentary evidence which was necessary to defeat the motion (see, City of New York v. Grosfeld Realty Co., supra). In addition, the defendant's affirmative defenses and counterclaims are without merit.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly ordered the recall of a prior order is not reviewable since it does not necessarily affect the final judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; see, Homburger v. Levitin, 140 A.D.2d 583).
Finally, the Supreme Court properly excluded parol evidence since the terms of the contract are clear and unambiguous (see, Slamow v. Del Col, 174 A.D.2d 725, affd 79 N.Y.2d 1016). Bracken, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.