Opinion
January 9, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On a motion for summary judgment, the movant bears the initial burden of making a prima facie showing of his or her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, GTF Mktg. v. Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 N.Y.2d 965; Alter v. Advance Alarm Co., 131 A.D.2d 406; Colonresto v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 128 A.D.2d 825). Absent such a showing, the motion is to be denied regardless of the insufficiency of the opposing papers (see, Empbanque Capital Corp. v. Griffith, 198 A.D.2d 259; Shamberg Marwell Cherneff Hocherman v. Laufer, 193 A.D.2d 664; Law Firm of Ira H. Leibowitz, Lasky Peterson v. Sikowitz, 129 A.D.2d 774). The unsubstantiated assertions and general conclusions set forth in the appellant's moving papers denying the allegations found in the complaint are insufficient to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
CPLR article 31 authorized the service of each of the plaintiff's disclosure demands at issue on this appeal, and the appellant has failed to articulate any legal basis to preclude discovery. Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant's motion for a protective order and in granting the plaintiff's cross motion to compel discovery.
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Lawrence, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.