Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case * * * Failure to make such showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers" (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853; see also, Narcisco v Ford Motor Co., 137 A.D.2d 508).
The defendant did not meet its burden of establishing its entitlement to summary judgment on its counterclaims. The "documentary proof" submitted by the defendant is numerous pages of an assortment of items, including invoices, copies of adding machine tapes, copies of checks, copies of payment stubs, credit approvals, ledgers, and work proposals. It is far from clear, however, that this confusing melange of paper establishes the defendant's right to summary judgment. To the contrary, those documents are disorderly and largely incomprehensible. Accordingly, the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment on its counterclaims.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.