SAFEGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY v. E. TETZ & SONS, INC.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the failure to sustain this initial burden requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; Schwartz & Co. v G & H Real Estate Holding Corp., 265 A.D.2d 316). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the brief affidavit of its employee and the documentary evidence it submitted in support of its motion were insufficient to establish, as a matter of law, that it properly calculated the additional premiums allegedly due on the policy (see, St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co. v Capri Constr. Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 1016; cf., Family Coatings v Michigan Mut. Ins. Co., 170 A.D.2d 816). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not err in denying the motion.