Opinion
March 23, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the motion is denied.
"[I]n a motion for summary judgment, the moving party has the burden of setting forth evidentiary facts to establish his cause sufficiently to entitle him to judgment as a matter of law [and] anything less requires a denial of the motion even where the opposing papers are insufficient" (Coley v Michelin Tire Corp., 99 A.D.2d 795, 796; see also, Raia Indus. v Young, 124 A.D.2d 722). Whatever doubts the Supreme Court may have harbored concerning the validity of the defense in this case, it should not have granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff failed to submit any invoices or delivery receipts or like documentation to support its claims (see, Crocker Commercial Servs. v Safdie, 111 A.D.2d 34; Import Blank Export v Walker Assocs., 51 A.D.2d 958; cf., Illumalights Mfg. v Neo-Ray Prods., 124 A.D.2d 644), and therefore failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.