Opinion
May 15, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on their second and third counterclaims since they proffered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that no triable issues of fact existed, and the plaintiff's papers in opposition were insufficient to raise triable issues of fact in connection with his claim that he was not the proprietary lessee of the subject apartments (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; Dress Shirt Sales v Hotel Martinique Assocs., 12 N.Y.2d 339; Hakim v Mahdavian, 185 A.D.2d 428).
We have reviewed the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Joy, J.P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.