Opinion
2376.
December 4, 2003.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered October 2, 2002, which, upon the prior grant of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $174,362.76, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Andrew Kosloff for Plaintiff-Respondent.
Steven H. Griffiths for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Williams, Gonzalez, JJ.
While defendant is correct that Pennsylvania law governs plaintiff's claim for breach of presentment warranties pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code ( see New York UCC 4-102), summary judgment was nonetheless properly granted since defendant failed, in response to plaintiff's prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment, to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue or to offer an acceptable excuse for not doing so ( see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562; Moukarzel v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., 235 A.D.2d 239; Hanneford Circus v. Cabar Circus Promotions, 201 A.D.2d 456). In opposing plaintiff's motion, defendant relied solely on an attorney's affidavit in which counsel argued that there is a "strong inference" that plaintiff's customer was negligent. Such speculation, however, is insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion ( see Zuckerman, supra; Lichtman v. Mount Judah Cemetery, 269 A.D.2d 319, 321; Moukarzel, supra).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.