DAVEY v. Mary R. Davey, respondent. (2007)

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, false arrest, and false imprisonment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated June 27, 2006, which granted the motion of the defendant Mary R. Davey for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the affirmation of the moving defendant's attorney was sufficient to support the motion for summary judgment as it was based upon his personal knowledge of the facts and was supported by documentary evidence (see Ellman v. Village of Rhinebeck, 41 A.D.3d 635, 636, 838 N.Y.S.2d 641;  Krohn v. Felix Indus., 302 A.D.2d 499, 500, 755 N.Y.S.2d 285;  Pantaleone v. Viewmore Homes, 225 A.D.2d 599, 600, 639 N.Y.S.2d 740;  Cerulean Land Dev. Corp. v. Colon Development Corp., 144 A.D.2d 615, 616, 535 N.Y.S.2d 35).

In opposition to the moving defendant's prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the causes of action alleging malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and false arrest, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).   Furthermore, the evidence does not support the plaintiff's contention that the moving defendant committed perjury (see Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of Ulster County v. Powell, 39 A.D.3d 946, 948, 833 N.Y.S.2d 285;  Solomon v. Solomon, 27 A.D.3d 988, 990, 813 N.Y.S.2d 787).

In addition, the cause of action alleging fraud was barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see Xiao Yang Chen v. Fischer, 6 N.Y.3d 94, 810 N.Y.S.2d 96, 843 N.E.2d 723;  Boronow v. Boronow, 71 N.Y.2d 284, 525 N.Y.S.2d 179, 519 N.E.2d 1375).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.