Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On a motion for summary judgment, the movant initially bears the burden of setting forth evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle that party to judgment as a matter of law. Only then does the burden shift to the opposing party to come forward with proof ( see, Piccolo v. De Carlo, 90 A.D.2d 609). Where, as here, the moving papers are insufficient, there is no necessity for an opposing party to respond with evidentiary proof ( see, Greenberg v. Manlon Realty, 43 A.D.2d 968; Holtz v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 147 A.D.2d 857). Since the appellant did not meet the initial burden of setting forth evidentiary facts sufficient to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court properly denied the cross motion ( see, Coley v. Michelin Tire Corp., 99 A.D.2d 795).
S. Miller, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.