made clear that bare allegations or conclusory assertions are insufficient to create genuine, bona
fide issues of fact necessary to defeat such a motion. See Rotuba Extruders, Inc. v
Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231 (1978).
Here, the motion for summary judgment is granted as no triable issues of fact exist. In
support of his motion, plaintiff proffers the Lease and copies of the cancelled checks. Plaintiff
contends that defendant failed to deposit the Security and Utilities Deposits into segregated bank
accounts as required by the Lease and by GOL § 7-103. Instead, plaintiff claims defendant
commingled the deposits with defendant's personal funds and never notified plaintiff of the name
and address of the bank in which the deposits were made, in violation of GOL § 7-103.
Plaintiff argues that the plain language of the Lease provides for the Utilities and Security
Deposits to be deposited in a "segregated account within New York State". Lease, ¶¶
2 and 4. The Lease also provides for the return of the Security Deposit "[w]ithin forty-five (45)
days following termination of the lease term". Lease, ¶ 4. Plaintiff further claims that,
pursuant to New York Real Property Law (RPL) § 234, he is entitled to recover attorneys'
fees and expenses incurred.
Defendant opposes this motion, arguing that issues of fact exist and that plaintiff prematurely
moved for summary judgment, since plaintiff failed to comply with discovery. [*3]Defendant denies commingling or converting the Security and
Utilities Deposits and contends that plaintiff was provided with notice identifying the depository
bank, as the back of the return copies of plaintiff's checks "reflected the identification of the
depository bank and account." Peters' Affidavit, ¶ 11. Defendant states that since the checks