Opinion
June 24, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Luciano, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant, as there was no theory of liability under which the plaintiff might recover from it and no factual issues were presented requiring an adjudication on the merits (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). The undisputed evidence established that the defendant named in the complaint was not the general contractor who might be held responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. Under the circumstances herein the defendant's denial in its answer of "knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief" (CPLR 3018 [a]) as to its status as the general contractor was a sufficient denial of the plaintiff's allegations in the complaint. Bracken, J.P., Kooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O'Brien, JJ., concur.