"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 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]." Santiago v Filstein, 35 AD3d 184, 185-186 (1st Dept 2006). The burden then shifts to the motion's opponent to "present evidentiary facts in admissible form sufficient to raise a genuine, triable issue of fact." Mazurek v Metropolitan Museum of Art, 27 AD3d 227, 228 (1st Dept 2006); see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 (1980). If there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable fact, the motion for summary judgment must be denied. See Rotuba Extruders , Inc. v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231 (1978).
That branch of plaintiffs' motion seeking summary judgment on their second cause of action for breach of the warranty of habitability is granted with respect to liability only.
Defendant argues that this portion of the motion has already been determined and may not be re-addressed by the court. However, as stated in Jones v 636 Holding Corp. (73 AD3d 409 [1st Dept 2010]) "[s]uccessive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained without a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient justification." See also 11 Essex Street Corp. v Tower Insurance Company of New York, 81 AD3d 516 (1st Dept 2011).