Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based upon the plaintiff's signing of a general release ( see, CPLR 3211 [a] [5]; 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to proffer any evidence to show the existence of triable issues of fact. The affirmation of the plaintiff's counsel is insufficient to make the evidentiary showing necessary to defeat the motion ( see, Olan v. Farrell Lines, 64 N.Y.2d 1092, 1093; Zuckerman v. City of New York, supra, at 563; Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos, 46 N.Y.2d 223, 231), and the allegations in the verified complaint do not address the validity of the signed release. Moreover, neither the Verified complaint nor the verified bill of particulars sets forth sufficient evidentiary facts to demonstrate that a material issue of fact exists ( see, Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Solow, 51 N.Y.2d 870, 872).
Copertino, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.