Opinion
January 18, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Miller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
To obtain summary judgment, the movant must make a "prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact" (Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324). Here the plaintiffs made such a showing (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). The defendants' opposing papers did not constitute sufficient proof to defeat the motion for summary judgment, because they consisted entirely of conclusory statements and unsubstantiated allegations (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, supra).
We further find that the defendants' claim that the Supreme Court improperly granted summary judgment because the plaintiffs' theory of recovery was not asserted in the complaint is without merit. Although the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' conveyance of real property was fraudulent under Debtor and Creditor Law § 273-a, and the trial court found it was fraudulent under Debtor and Creditor Law § 275, summary judgment was properly granted because the proof supported the cause of action under section 275 and the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced (see, Deborah Intl. Beauty v. Quality King Distribs., 175 A.D.2d 791, 793; Rubenstein v. Rosenthal, 140 A.D.2d 156, 158). Mangano, P.J., O'Brien, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.