Spectrachem also submitted the affidavit of its comptroller, Peggy Emord, who, inter alia, referred to the above-mentioned letters in stating that the Low Crock sold to Arma was not defective. However, nothing in Emord's affidavit suggests that her affidavit was based upon personal knowledge of the facts asserted therein ( see, Sutton v. East Riv. Sav. Bank, 55 N.Y.2d 550, 553; Yellowstone Contrs. Corp. v. A.F.C. Enters., 237 A.D.2d 434, 435; Tracy v. William Penn Life Ins. Co., 234 A.D.2d 745, 746-747; Siegel v. Terrusa, 222 A.D.2d 428). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.
Further, counsel's personal speculation that, logically, the money in the bank accounts must consist of profits from the contracts with petitioner, does not raise a factual issue (cf Yellowstone Contrs. Corp. v A.F.C. Enters., 237 A.D.2d 434, 435 [2d Dept 1997] [affidavits in opposition to lien foreclosure lacked merit because not based on personal knowledge]). Similarly, counsel's speculation that Vance meant for the funds to cover claims such as petitioner's lacks merit, especially when Vance's office makes a contrary argument.