111 East 88th Street Partners v. Fine, 110 Misc. 2d 960 (1981)

The tenant’s affirmations in support of their summary judgment motions assert the existence of the same conditions that were the subject of Action No. 1. They assert personal knowledge and submit documentary evidence such as “logs” kept at regular tenant committee meetings. The landlord’s opposing papers contain only its attorney’s affirmation which, lacking all probative force, is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. (See Siegel, New York Practice, § 281; Practice Commentaries, *964McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR, C3212:16, p 436.) However, even in the attorney’s affidavits the deprivation of services is not disputed. Petitioner’s argument that each tenant must show at trial that she/he was on the premises and personally affected by the “clear pattern of malevolent withholding of services” (111 East 88th Partners v Simon, supra, at p 698) is specious. It ignores the tenants’ affirmations to the contrary and posits a state of oblivion that the court finds difficult to credit. The fact the deprivation of services may have had disparate effects on different individuals did not prevent Judge Gallet from awarding an over-all percentage abatement that was the same for each tenant, nor was that over-all award without sound precedent. (See Park West Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell, 47 NY2d 316, cert den 444 US 992.)