Opinion
May 26, 2000.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered December 6, 1999, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Thomas A. Egan and A.C. and S., Inc., etc., et al., Defendants.
Before: Wallach, J.P., Lerner, Rubin, Buckley, JJ.
Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of plaintiff, the party against whom summary judgment is sought (see, Millerman v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 214 A.D.2d at 362), the pictures of defendant's predecessor's product packaging showing a big "M" logo, submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant's motion, are sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether the manufacturer of asbestos-containing products known to plaintiff as "the Big M" was, in fact, defendant's predecessor, Mundet Cork Company. Although plaintiff's pictures were not authenticated, summary judgment is not warranted, as plaintiff should be given the opportunity to authenticate the documents at trial (see,Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562; see, e.g., NW Liquidating Corp. v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 248 A.D.2d 304; Guzman v. Strab Constr. Corp., 228 A.D.2d 645; Chin v. Vesel Adamaj, 188 A.D.2d 579). Defendant's own unauthenticated documents may not be considered in support of its motion for summary judgment (see, (Zuckerman v. City of New York, supra).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.