DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The evidence submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion for summary judgment was sufficient to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The defendant failed to submit evidence in admissible form to rebut this prima facie showing (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557 ).
The alleged statements of the building caretaker contained in the defendant's opposition papers to the plaintiff's motion constituted inadmissible hearsay (see, Eddy v. Tops Friendly, 59 N.Y.2d 692 ; Bellafiore v. L K Holding Corp., 244 A.D.2d 443 ; Agoglia v. Sterling Foster Co., 237 A.D.2d 549 ; Kruck v. St. John's Episcopal Hosp., 228 A.D.2d 565 ). While hearsay evidence of statements by an identified declarant has been held sufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment under certain circumstances (see, Egleston v. Kalamarides, 58 N.Y.2d 682 ; Friends of Animals v. Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065 ; Landisi v. Beacon Community Dev. Agency, 180 A.D.2d 1000 ), no such circumstances are present in this case because the defendant has provided no excuse for his failure to tender this evidence in admissible form (see, Schiffren v. Kramer, 225 A.D.2d 757 ; Egleston v. Kalamarides, supra).
MANGANO, P.J., ALTMAN, SCHMIDT, and SMITH, JJ., concur.