Opinion
April 8, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendant, as the proponent of the summary judgment motion, failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. He did not produce any evidence to support his contentions that the plaintiff's action is barred by the Statute of Limitations and that there was an effective release and discharge ( see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562; Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 N.Y.2d 395, 404). Moreover, the defendant did not produce any evidence demonstrating that he is entitled to summary judgment on his counterclaim. Thus, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposing papers, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment ( see, Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853; Greenberg v. Manlon Realty, 43 A.D.2d 968, 969).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Joy, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.