Opinion
2001-08359
Submitted November 8, 2002.
December 2, 2002.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated June 26, 2001, as granted the separate motions of the defendants Patricia E. Newman, Nancy S. Malin, and Peconic Properties, Ltd., for summary judgment dismissing thev complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Peters, Berger, Koshel Goldberg, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Marc A. Novic of counsel), for appellant.
Peter J. Creedon Associates, Melville, N.Y. (James J. Toomey, Jr., of counsel), for respondent Patricia E. Newman.
Robert H. Jewell, Mineola, N.Y. for respondent Nancy S. Malin.
Tromello, McDonnell Kehoe, Melville, N.Y. (Kevin P. Slattery of counsel), for respondent Peconic Properties, Ltd.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
In support of their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, the defendants established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that they did not create the defective condition on which the plaintiff slipped and fell, a two-inch high incline on the asphalt pavement of a public roadway abutting the property owned by the defendant Peconic Properties, Ltd., and formerly owned by the defendants Nancy S. Malin and Patricia E. Newman (see Pratt v. Villa Roma Country Club, 277 A.D.2d 298, 299). In opposition to the motions, the plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v. the City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562).
There is no merit to the plaintiff's contention that the motion for summary judgment was premature because discovery was not complete. The plaintiff may not rely upon mere hope that evidence sufficient to defeat summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process (see Drug Guild Distrib. v. 3-9 Drugs, 277 A.D.2d 197; Weltmann v. RWP Group, 232 A.D.2d 550; Aminov v. East 50th St. Rest. Corp., 232 A.D.2d 592).
SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, CRANE and MASTRO, JJ., concur.