In determining that issue we look “primarily to the affidavit or other evidence proffered in support of the application in order to determine whether, if the evidence should be offered at a hearing, it would be admissible proof entitling the petitioner to relief.” Dalli v. United States, 491 F.2d 758, 760 (2d Cir.1974). In this regard, “[m]ere generalities or hearsay statements will not normally entitle the applicant to a hearing, since such hearsay would be inadmissible at the hearing itself.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Rather, “[t]he petitioner must set forth specific facts which he is in a position to establish by competent evidence.” Id. at 761; see also Hayden v. United States, 814 F.2d 888, 892 (2d Cir.1987) (same); United States v. Aiello, 814 F.2d 109, 113 (2d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). The allegations in the Harvey affidavit
holding that in a bench trial it is presumed that the judge as trier of fact is able to distinguish between competent and incompetent evidence and consider only that evidence which is admissible holding that hearing is appropriate when application contains assertions of fact that a petitioner is in a position to establish by competent evidence holding that unsubstantiated assertions are not competent summary judgment evidence holding that an attorneys unsworn statement does not establish a fact in absence of a stipulation and does not constitute competent evidence holding that defendants assertions of workproduct were not supported by competent evidence