Opinion
2000-10244
Submitted November 2, 2001.
November 26, 2001.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Ponterio, J.), dated August 30, 2000, as denied her motion for summary judgment against the defendants Robert A. Schwartz and Frank F. Cangro, and granted the cross motions of those defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and (2) from an order of the same court dated October 31, 2000, which denied her motion for summary judgment against the defendant Lisa Nien Tsu Lu and granted the cross motion of that defendant to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her.
Jennifer Cangro, Staten Island, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Lifshutz, Polland Hoffman, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Elliot R. Polland of counsel), for respondent Frank F. Cangro.
Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, ANITA R. FLORIO, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
ORDERED that the order dated August 30, 2000, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated October 31, 2000, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the defendant Frank F. Cangro is awarded one bill of costs payable by the appellant.
The plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law against any of the defendants, by "tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case" (Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853). Summary judgment can neither be awarded nor defeated on the basis of the conclusory assertions contained in the plaintiff's moving papers (see, Lopez v. Senatore, 65 N.Y.2d 1017, 1019; Finkelstein v. Cornell Univ. Med. Coll., 269 A.D.2d 114; Solow v. Liebman, 262 A.D.2d 633).
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' separate cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to come forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Schwartz v. Dumbrowsky, 282 A.D.2d 597; Votta v. Votta Enters., 249 A.D.2d 536; Jones v. Sumo Container Sta., 186 A.D.2d 539).
KRAUSMAN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, FLORIO and ADAMS, JJ., concur.