CARBONI v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Defendant–Appellant. (2023)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Adam Silvera, J.), entered January 27, 2023, which denied the motion of defendant Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (PCNA) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While an affidavit is generally considered competent and sufficient evidence on a motion for summary judgment (see Miller v. City of New York, 253 A.D.2d 394, 677 N.Y.S.2d 111 [1st Dept. 1998]), an affidavit that is conclusory and without specific factual basis does not satisfy the prima facie burden of a proponent of a motion for summary judgment (see Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 123 A.D.3d 498, 499, 1 N.Y.S.3d 20 [1st Dept. 2014]).  Here, PCNA's employee affidavit concerning the time period during which it distributed the allegedly asbestos-containing products was based on his review of unspecified documents between unspecified entities and was thus insufficient to meet PCNA's prima facie burden.  PCNA's attempt to correct this deficiency on reply was improper and insufficient (see Hawthorne v. City of New York, 44 A.D.3d 544, 544–545, 844 N.Y.S.2d 35 [1st Dept. 2007]).  In any event, even if PCNA established that it did not have any liability for products distributed prior to 1984, decedent's deposition testimony, while equivocal in part, allows the inference that that plaintiff worked on asbestos-containing PCNA products in 1984 and beyond.  Additionally, the deposition testimony of decedent's coworker raised questions of fact as to whether decedent worked with PCNA products as late as 1988.