Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Peter Paul Sweeney, J.), entered December 8, 2005. The order granted a motion by Restore Housing Development Fund Corp. and a cross motion by Phipps Housing a/k/a C.D.R., both sued herein as "Restore Housing a/k/a Phipps Housing a/k/a C.D.R.," to the extent of dismissing plaintiff's claim for damage to her television set, carpet and entertainment center.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed without costs.

In this action commenced on December 23, 2002, plaintiff asserted claims for property damage, personal injuries and fraud. After a trial on the personal injuries and fraud claims, a judgment was entered on May 15, 2003 dismissing those two claims. On a prior appeal, this court affirmed that judgment (4 Misc 3d 129[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50680[U] [2004]). Plaintiff's property damage claim had been severed for a separate trial. Thereafter, the Civil Court granted a motion by Restore Housing Development Fund Corp. and a cross motion by Phipps Housing a/k/a C.D.R., both sued herein as "Restore Housing a/k/a Phipps Housing a/k/a C.D.R.," to the extent of dismissing plaintiff's claim for damage to her television set, carpet and entertainment center, on the grounds that the claim was time-barred and plaintiff's attorney's affirmation was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.

In our view, the papers submitted in support of the motion and cross motion established the movants' prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law, thereby shifting the burden to plaintiff to come forward with proof in admissible form to establish a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff's papers, consisting solely of an affirmation of counsel, who lacked personal knowledge of the facts, were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Rue v Stokes, 191 [*2]AD2d 245 [1993]). Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Golia, J.P., Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 05, 2009