Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on June 15, 1970, unanimously reversed, on the law, and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as against defendant-appellant denied. Appellant shall recover of respondent $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The suit is for damage to plaintiff-respondent's property by blasting carried on at a building site by defendant-appellant. Plaintiff's proofs consist of plaintiff's president's affidavit, and that of an expert with no personal knowledge of the prior condition of the premises. Each affidavit states a conclusion of causation, and they are countered by the affidavit of appellant's attorney, pointing out that plaintiff alone has knowledge of the "before-and-after" factors peculiar to this case. Thus, appellant is not able "to assemble, lay bare and reveal his proofs" ( Di Sabato v. Soffes, 9 A.D.2d 297, 301) in this controversy and summary judgment may not be granted on these papers. Spano v. Perini ( 25 N.Y.2d 11) was misapplied by Special Term; it imposes absolute liability in a blasting case but does not dispense with proof of causation. Further, "No purpose is served by granting summary judgment as the proof on the assessment would be identical with the proof on trial." ( Schwartz v. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co., 20 A.D.2d 688.)
Concur — Stevens, P.J., Eager, Markewich, Nunez and McNally, JJ.