It is noted that the affirmation of respondents' counsel contains no assertion of the basis of the attorney's knowledge of any facts or transactions described therein. Absent the attorney's assertion of a basis for his or her personal knowledge of the underlying facts and transactions, the affirmation is of no evidentiary value ( See, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563; 404 N.E.2d 718, 721; Feratovic v. Lun Wah, Inc., 284 AD2d 368, 368; 725 N.Y.S.2d 892, 893 [2d 2001]). The court will, nevertheless, consider the legal arguments raised by respondents' counsel pertaining to alleged deficiencies in the pleadings and termination notice.

It is noted that the affirmation of respondents' counsel contains no assertion of the basis of the attorney's knowledge of any facts or transactions described therein. Absent the attorney's assertion of a basis for his or her personal knowledge of the underlying facts and transactions, the affirmation is of no evidentiary value (See, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563; 404 N.E.2d 718, 721 [1980]; Feratovic v. Lun Wah, Inc., 284 AD2d 368, 368; 725 N.Y.S.2d 892, 893 [2d 2001]). The court will, nevertheless, consider the legal arguments raised by respondents' counsel pertaining to alleged deficiencies in the pleadings and termination notice.

On summary judgment, the “bare affirmation” of an attorney, which is not based upon personal knowledge of the facts, is “without evidentiary value.” ( See Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 563, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 [1980];Feratovic v. Lun Wah, Inc., 284 A.D.2d 368, 368–69, 725 N.Y.S.2d 892 [2d Dept.2001].) The “information and belief” of the attorney adds nothing ( see Henriquez v. Purins, 245 A.D.2d 337, 338, 666 N.Y.S.2d 190 [2d Dept.1997]; Wood v. Nourse, 124 A.D.2d 1020, 1021, 509 N.Y.S.2d 223 [4th Dept.1986] ), even when based upon the attorney's review of the client's file ( see Park Health Center v. Green Bus Lines Inc., 2002 N.Y. Slip Op 40029 [U], 2002 WL 416484 [App. Term 2nd & 11th Jud. Dists.; Building Management Co., Inc. v. Vision Quest of Flatbush, 1 Misc.3d 681] ).