Case Name: Michael Hayes, Appellant, v. Dutchess County et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1996-06-24
Citations: 228 A.D.2d 648
Docket Number: 
Parties: Michael Hayes, Appellant, v Dutchess County et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 228
Pages: 648–648

Head Matter:
Michael Hayes, Appellant, v Dutchess County et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.
[644 NYS2d 984]

Opinion:
It is well settled that after a party, as here, has made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, a party opposing such a motion must produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of material questions of fact on which the opposing party bases his or her claim. Mere conclusions, expressions of hope, or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient to meet this burden (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560). The plaintiff has failed to meet his burden; accordingly the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents' motion for summary judgment. Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.