evidence in admissible form in support of their cross-motion. The copy of a drinking
water test report attached to counsel's affirmation was not qualified as a business record
or otherwise in admissible form and was thus hearsay. Defendants did [*2]not attach any documentation at all regarding the notices of
default allegedly sent. Accordingly, defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of
entitlement to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' fourth and fifth causes of action
(Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).
Plaintiffs did not oppose the portion of the cross-motion seeking dismissal of the
cause of action seeking inspection of books and records, and their arguments on appeal
are therefore unpreserved for review (see Howard v Turner Constr. Co., 134 AD3d 523, 524 [1st
Dept 2015]).
Finally, Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs'
motion seeking to disqualify defendants' counsel, as it was based only on speculation that
conflicts might arise (see Matter
of Kaufman v Tudor Realty Servs. Corp., 4 AD3d 212, 213 [1st Dept 2004],
lv denied 3 NY3d 604 [2004]).
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Concur—Singh, J.P., Moulton, Gesmer, Mendez, Rodriguez, JJ.