Opinion
February 26, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.).
Plaintiffs themselves deemed defendants' motion as one for summary judgment, submitting affidavits and arguments in opposition that clearly indicated that they were laying bare their proof, and therefore cannot now claim that they were not given CPLR 3211 (c) notice ( see, Mihlovan v. Grozavu, 72 N.Y.2d 506, 508; Four Seasons Hotels v. Vinnik, 127 A.D.2d 310, 320-321). Concerning the merits, plaintiff's do not refute defendants' accounting of the investments they made on behalf of plaintiffs, which demonstrates an investment policy and practice in keeping with what plaintiffs allege was disregarded, and otherwise fail to show that their claims are genuine and can be established at trial ( see, Selznick v. Ordan Corp., 202 A.D.2d 268).
Concur — Milonas, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.