ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that "[t]he proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case * * * Failure to make such showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers" (Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853; see, Alvarez v. Prospect. Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324; Allen v. Blum, 212 A.D.2d 562; Indelicato v. Wyckoff Hgts. Hosp., 205 A.D.2d 664). Furthermore, bare allegations which do not refute the specific factual allegations of medical malpractice in the bill of particulars are insufficient to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Allen v. Blum, supra; Indelicato v. Wyckoff Hgts. Hosp., supra). Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the appellant did not meet its burden, since its medical experts did not refute, or even address, the specific factual allegations of negligence asserted in the plaintiffs' supplemental bill of particulars. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied.
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., FRIEDMANN, McGINITY and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.