The following numbered papers were used on these motions: NYSCEF Document Numbers 15-27, 29-31. ORDER Upon the foregoing papers, having heard oral argument, and due deliberation having been had, the within two motions are determined as follows: INTRODUCTION In the well-cited decision of Zuckerman v. City of New York (49 NY2d 557 [1980], the Court of Appeals discussed opposition to a motion for summary judgment: Normally if the opponent is to succeed in defeating a summary judgment motion he, too, must make his showing by producing evidentiary proof in admissible form. The rule with respect to defeating a motion for summary judgment, however, is more flexible, for the opposing party, as contrasted with the movant, may be permitted to demonstrate acceptable excuse for his failure to meet the strict requirement of tender in admissible form (e.g., Phillips v. Kantor & Co., 31 NY2d 307; Indig v. Finkelstein, 23 NY2d 728; also CPLR 3212, subd [f]).” We have repeatedly held that one opposing a motion for summary judgment must produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of material questions of fact on which he rests his claim or must demonstrate acceptable excuse for his failure to meet the requirement of tender in admissible form; mere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient (Alvord v. Swift & Muller Constr. Co., 46 NY2d 276, 281- 282; Fried v. Bower & Gardner, 46 NY2d 765, 767; Platzman v. American Totalisator Co., 45 NY2d 910, 912; Mallad Constr. Corp. v. County Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 32 NY2d 285, 290). (49 NY2d at 563.) The within motions present the issue of what circumstances justify a court’s acceptance of the opponent’s evidence not strictly adhering to the rules of evidence on a motion for summary judgment, especially in opposition so as to warrant denying the movant’s motion. PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS In this action, Plaintiff Queens Neurology, P.C. maintains that in 2002, it obtained a judgment against Defendant Allstate Ins. Co. in Queens Civil Court in the amount of $2,523.48, and that it was never paid. The instant action was commenced for renewal of the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5014. (See NY St Cts Elec Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 6, Tsirelman aff
2-3.) Plaintiff moves in Motion Sequence No. 1 for summary judgment against Defendant on its cause of action (see NYSCEF Doc No. 5, notice of motion). It mentions that ten years have elapsed since the first docketing of the judgment (see NYSCEF Doc No. 6, Tsirelman aff 5). In further support, Plaintiff submits the affidavit of Andrew Ivanson, former doctor and the sole owner of Plaintiff.1 In pertinent part, Mr. Ivanson attested to: 2. …After not receiving any payment from the Defendant, a lawsuit was instituted on behalf of Queens Neurology PC in Queens County NY with the caption of Queens Neurology PC v. Allstate Ins. Co. (“Allstate”) with an index # 031721/02. 3. Allstate defaulted in the above stated action and a judgment was entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant on March 5, 2002 in the amount of $2,523.48 plus statutory interest pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.9(a)[.] Allstate has not paid any amount of the judgment and the judgment remains outstanding. 4. Plaintiff filed the instant action on 12/23/2021 for a renewal of judgment pursuant to CPLR 5014. Ten years have elapsed since the first docketing of the judgment. Defendant answered. This summary judgment motion is now being filed for renewal of judgment. (NYSCEF Doc No. 7, Ivanson aff
