| Fenko v Mealing |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06626 [43 AD3d 856] |
| September 11, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Adel Fenko et al., Appellants, v Georgette Mealing et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] McMahon Martine & Gallagher, New York, N.Y. (Patrick W. Brophy of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by theirbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), datedJuly 13, 2006, as denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and theplaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.
The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the issue ofliability by demonstrating that the defendant Wanda J. Mealing failed to yield at a stop sign andcollided with a vehicle operated by the plaintiff Adel Fenko (see Vehicle and Traffic Law§ 1142 [a]; Arbizu v REMTransp., Inc., 20 AD3d 375, 375-376 [2005]; Morgan v Hachmann, 9 AD3d 400 [2004]). In opposition, thedefendants failed to submit evidence in admissible form to raise a triable issue of fact (seeZuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562-563 [1980]; Arbizu v REM Transp.,Inc., supra; Hoffman v Eastern Long Is. Transp. Enter., 266 AD2d 509, 510 [1999]).Furthermore, "the defendants' purported need to conduct discovery did not warrant denial of themotion since they already had personal knowledge of the relevant facts" (Abramov v Miral Corp., 24 AD3d397, 398 [2005]). "The mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motionfor summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to deny themotion" (Lopez v WS Distrib., Inc.,34 AD3d 759, 760 [2006]; seePina v Merolla, 34 AD3d 663, 664 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred [*2]in denying the plaintiffs' motion. Crane, J.P., Ritter, Dillon andCarni, JJ., concur.