Opinion
February 1, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
It is well settled that where, as here, a moving party has made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action ( see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 334; Wallice v. Waterpointe at Oakdale Shores, 249 A.D.2d 383; Mayer v. McBrunigan Constr. Corp., 105 A.D.2d 774; Krupp v. Aetna Life Cas. Co., 103 A.D.2d 252, 261-262). The defendant's proof made out a prima facie case that he did not commit the acts alleged in the four causes of action dismissed by the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs' conclusory allegations and hypotheses in response thereto were insufficient to raise a triable factual issue. Thus, the four causes of action were properly dismissed ( see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562; Riverhead Bldg. Supply Corp. v. Regine Starr, Inc., 249 A.D.2d 532; Robinson v. Strong Mem. Hosp., 98 A.D.2d 976; see generally, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., supra).
Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.