Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
We reject the plaintiff's contention that the Supreme Court improperly relied upon the affirmation of the moving defendant's attorney in granting the motion. The affirmation of the attorney was based upon his personal knowledge of the facts and was supported by documentary evidence. It was thus sufficient to support the motion (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562-563; Cerulean Land Developers Corp. v Colon Dev. Corp., 144 A.D.2d 615; Russo Realty Corp. v Wilbert, 98 A.D.2d 745). Rosenblatt, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.