Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the appellants' motions are granted, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants.
The Supreme Court erred in failing to grant the appellants' motions. The affidavit of the plaintiffs' expert which contained conclusory assertions that the injured plaintiff's injuries were the result of improper nourishment, hydration, and inadequate oxygen therapy, failed to meet the plaintiffs' burden of supplying proof sufficient to rebut the affidavits submitted by the defendants in support of their motions for summary judgment. Those affidavits by a neonatalist and a geneticist stating their opinions and the factual bases therefor established that the nature and extent of the injured plaintiff's disability could not have resulted from the post-birth care by the appellants, but was characteristic of a genetic defect ( see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324; Fileccia v. Massapequa Gen. Hosp., 63 N.Y.2d 639; Vogel v. Palmieri, 221 A.D.2d 522; Muscatello v. City of New York, 215 A.D.2d 463; Jederlinic v. Arya, 209 A.D.2d 586; Toledo v. Ordway, 208 A.D.2d 518; Dachille v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 207 A.D.2d 373). Accordingly the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.