DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly granted the respondents' motion for summary judgment. In opposition to the respondents' prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853). Although the plaintiffs timely furnished a response to the respondents' demand letter dated September 28, 1998 (see General Construction Law § 20; Ball v. Allstate Ins. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 22, 24, 26), their failure to swear to the veracity of their list of damaged items is a complete defense to the plaintiffs' action on the insurance policy (see Insurance Law § 3407[a]; Anthony Marino Constr. Corp. v. INA Underwriters Ins. Co., 69 N.Y.2d 798, 800; Maleh v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 64 N.Y.2d 613, 614; Litter v. Allstate Ins. Co., 208 A.D.2d 602; Melamudov v. Colonia Ins. Co., 202 A.D.2d 557, 558).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
GOLDSTEIN, J.P., ADAMS, TOWNES and CRANE, JJ., concur.