Majority
In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The opinion of the plaintiffs’ expert, submitted in opposition to the motion, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, as it was not in admissible form (see CPLR 2106; Doumanis v Conzo, 265 AD2d 296 [1999]; see also Moore v 3 Phase Equestrian Ctr., Inc., 83 AD3d 677 [2011]; Hegy v Coller, 262 AD2d 606 [1999]), and no excuse was provided for the failure to tender the evidence in admissible form (see generally Moffett v Gerardi, 75 AD3d 496 , 498 [2010]).
Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it should have been granted. Skelos, J.P, Balkin, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Lomonico v. Massapequa Public Schools 84 AD3d 1033 p. 941
- DiGiose v. Bellmore-Merrick Central High School District 50 AD3d 623 p. 941
- Rendine v. St. John's University 289 AD2d 465 p. 941
- Weber v. William Floyd School District, UFSD 272 AD 2d 396 p. 941
- Doumanis v. Conzo 265 AD2d 296 p. 941
- Moore v. 3 Phase Equestrian Center, Inc. 83 AD3d 677 p. 941
- Hegy v. Coller 262 AD2d 606 p. 941
- Moffett v. Gerardi 75 AD3d 496 at 498 p. 941