Opinion
October 16, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Schenectady County (Shea, J.).
In this action to recover $11,063.24 allegedly owed to plaintiff by defendant for goods sold to defendant, we find that Special Term correctly denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. As both parties have noted, summary judgment is a drastic remedy which should be granted only when there is no doubt as to the absence of a triable issue of fact (Phillips v Kantor Co., 31 N.Y.2d 307, 311; Alfano v First Natl. Bank, 111 A.D.2d 960, 962). While a question certainly has been raised as to defendant's credibility, arising from certain statements made in his affidavit, we are nevertheless unwilling to say that defendant's affidavits should be rejected outright or that as a matter of law his affidavits are inadequate to set up a triable issue of fact (see, Davis Acoustical Corp. v Matzen Constr., 57 A.D.2d 1018, 1019; cf. 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3212.12). An examination of the record reveals that defendant may indeed have valid objections to at least some of the invoices attached as exhibits to plaintiff's affidavit. Given this, plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment.
Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.