Opinion
February 1, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J., Kenneth Shorter, J.).
The facts adduced by defendants on their motion to renew do not warrant vacatur of the prior orders granting plaintiff summary judgment. Whereas defendants' claim that Blitz's signature on the instruments pertaining to the 56th Street apartment was forged is supported by little more than his conclusory assertions that he was not present at the closing and did not sign the documents at issue, plaintiff came forward with the sworn affidavits of witnesses, including Blitz's own counsel and the notary who attested to his signature on the documents, confirming his presence at the closing. The telephone records offered by defendants indicating that two calls were placed to Blitz's Connecticut home in the mid-afternoon of the day of the closing do not establish Blitz's presence in Connecticut at the exact hour of the closing in Manhattan, nor does the fact that a title report was dated the next business day following the closing refute Blitz's execution of the closing documents. We have reviewed defendants' remaining claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Wallach and Ross, JJ.