DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action against several defendants, including the respondent Rudie James, after the defendant Hermine James (hereinafter Hermine) failed to repay two loans of $10,000 each she had received from the plaintiff, and failed to make payments on another $10,000 bank loan for which the plaintiff cosigned. The plaintiff alleges that the respondent, Hermine's father, conspired with the other defendants in a scheme to deceive and defraud the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court properly granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. The conclusory and speculative assertions contained in the affirmation of the plaintiff's attorney submitted in opposition to the respondent's motion for summary judgment were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; Matter of Spangenberg, 248 A.D.2d 543; A. Bella Food Corp. v. Luigi's Italian Deli, 243 A.D.2d 592; Purcell v. McDaniel Ford, 224 A.D.2d 601).
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding the respondent actual expenses and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (a) upon its finding that the action against him was completely without merit in law and could not be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law ( see, Greene v. Merchants Businessmen's Mut. Ins. Co., 259 A.D.2d 519 [2d Dept., March 15, 1999]).