Opinion
May 22, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the defendant David C. Koshar submitted sworn affidavits and documentary evidence demonstrating his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Matter of Maeder, 203 A.D.2d 464; Ionian Constr. v Stiftung, 202 A.D.2d 554). The affidavit of the plaintiff Robert E. Kalbacher, submitted in opposition to the motion, failed to establish a genuine triable issue of fact since it did not tend to prove the existence of a formal employment or master-servant relationship between Koshar and the defendant Hector W. Paez, who was operating the vehicle at the time of the collision. Moreover, the two additional affidavits submitted by the plaintiffs were based on hearsay and, thus, did not constitute evidence in admissible form (see, McCormack v Graphic Mach. Servs., 139 A.D.2d 631; see generally, Barrette v General Elec. Co., 144 A.D.2d 983). Inasmuch as the plaintiffs' speculative arguments in opposition to the motion consisted of "mere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations" (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562), the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment in favor of Koshar (see, e.g., Amatulli v Delhi Constr. Corp., 77 N.Y.2d 525; Matter of Maeder, supra; Savino Oil Heating Co. v Rana Mgt. Corp., 161 A.D.2d 635; Marine Midland Bank v Idar Gem Distribs., 133 A.D.2d 525).
We have considered the plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, Thompson and Hart, JJ., concur.