We agree with the IAS Court that defendant Dr. Cardi's affidavits in support of his cross motion, while substantiating the appropriateness of a cone biopsy, are bare and conclusory and insufficient to preclude liability as a matter of law with respect to plaintiff's claim that excessive tissue was removed during that procedure necessitating further surgical procedures during her pregnancy. Having failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Rubin and Williams, JJ.