Decided June 15, 1993
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, Jan H. Plumadore, J.
Saul Aronson, Albany, and Francis E. Lehner for appellants.
DeLorenzo, Gordon, Pasquariello, Weiskopf Harding, P.C., Schenectady (Marshall P. Richer of counsel), for respondents.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the negative.
"[T]he proponent of a summary judgment motion 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 issues of fact" (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324). The "[f]ailure to make such prima facie showing requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers" (id., at 324). Here, in support of their summary judgment motion, movants merely assert that defendant's negligent operation of his vehicle was the sole proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries and that no triable issues of fact existed. These conclusory assertions are insufficient to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact.
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges SIMONS, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., BELLACOSA and SMITH concur in memorandum.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed, etc.