Opinion
February 10, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.).
Ordered that the appeal and the cross appeal from the order dated October 5, 1989, are dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated April 6, 1990, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that order dated April 6, 1990, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.
The plaintiff Charles S. Nahles alleged that he was injured when he tripped and fell over a raised portion of the roadway located near the intersection of Madison Street and Hempstead Turnpike in the Town of Hempstead and claimed that the defective roadway condition was caused or created by one or both of the defendants. We find that the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The affidavits in support of the defendants' cross motions sufficiently established their defense so as to warrant granting 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). The plaintiffs' unsubstantiated allegations were insufficient to raise a material triable issue of fact (see, Frank Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co., supra; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). In the present case, the plaintiffs' "mere speculation that something might be uncovered through discovery provides no basis for denying the defendant's motion[s]" (Hohnke v. I-H Sing Lee, 159 A.D.2d 487, 488). Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.