Opinion
February 27, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.).
Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
While CPLR 3025 (b) provides that "[a] party may amend his pleading * * * at any time by leave of court" and that "[l]eave shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just", we cannot say that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. The proposed amendment to the complaint is patently insufficient on its face (Fisher v Carter Indus., 127 A.D.2d 817).
As to the motion of the defendant Linden Towers Cooperative No. 5, Inc. (hereinafter Linden) for summary judgment, the existing complaint contains the allegation that Linden sold the plaintiff's shares of stock at a price below their fair market value. The plaintiff has offered no appraisals of the shares or any other evidence as to the value of the apartment in question. In fact, the plaintiff's allegation that the shares were sold at a price below the market value is unsupported by anything other than her own "information and belief". A party opposing a motion for summary judgment must "'show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact' * * * and [such a] showing must be made by producing evidentiary proof in admissible form" (Mascoli v Mascoli, 129 A.D.2d 778, 779). The plaintiff has failed to do so and therefore summary judgment was properly awarded to Linden. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.