Opinion
2132
November 7, 2002.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered July 25, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the cross motion of defendants Rajendra Parikh and AEA Consulting Services for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
JOHN E. OSBORN, for plaintiffs-respondents.
EUGENE B. NATHANSON, for defendants-appellants.
Before: Tom, J.P., Rosenberger, Friedman, Gonzalez, JJ.
The affidavit of defendant Rajendra Parikh, offered as an expert opinion, failed to establish defendants-appellants' prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, since it contained only conclusory, self-serving assertions, lacking any reference to specific industry standards and/or practices, to support the conclusion that the work at issue was done in a professionally competent manner (see Estate of Nevelson v. Carro, Spanbock, Kaster Cuiffo, 259 A.D.2d 282, 284;compare Estate of Michael J. Burke v. Peter J. Repetti Co., 255 A.D.2d 483; see also Mosher v. Town of Oppenheim, 263 A.D.2d 605, 606). Furthermore, defendants' disagreement with plaintiffs' factual averments as to such matters, among others, as how the locations of the cooling units at issue came to be chosen, and whether plaintiff misread defendant Parikh's plans, merely raise issues of fact.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.