Opinion
June 22, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Marbach, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 26, 1990, is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is modified, by deleting the provision thereof which imposed upon the plaintiffs a sanction in the amount of $2,500; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is modified accordingly; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint insofar as it is asserted against them. In this regard, we note that they submitted a supporting affidavit which sufficiently established their defense to warrant an award of summary judgment in their favor (see, Daliendo v Johnson, 147 A.D.2d 312; see also, Frank Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 966). Moreover, the plaintiffs' unsubstantiated allegations were insufficient to raise a material triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557), and the plaintiffs' "mere speculation that something might be uncovered through discovery" does not warrant denial of the motion (see, Hohnke v. I-H Sing Lee, 159 A.D.2d 487, 488).
However, under the circumstances of this case, the imposition of a $2,500 sanction upon the plaintiffs was unwarranted (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [d]). Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, O'Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.