Chekowsky v Windemere Owners, LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 01139 [1st Dept. 2014]
While defendants' employee's affidavit in opposition stated that more than $55,000 had been spent on the improvements, the employee was not a person with knowledge of the facts, and her statement was unsupported by any admissible evidence, such as affidavits by the various vendors she claimed would testify to additional improvements at trial, and devoid of an explanation of why they are not now available (see Castro v New York Univ., 5 AD3d 135 [1st Dept 2004]; CPLR 3212[b]).
Defendants failed to show that they needed further discovery, especially since they are not [*2]seeking any records from plaintiff, and they had 17 months to search their own records (see Bailey v New York City Tr. Auth., 270 AD2d 156 [1st Dept 2000]; CPLR 3212[f]).
Emphasis mine
bruteforcelawyer.com 