Opinion
February 4, 1998
Present — Denman, P.J., Lawton, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.
Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint against defendant Eastman Kodak Company dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of defendant Eastman Kodak Company (Kodak) for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' causes of action based upon common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200. In support of its motion, Kodak submitted evidentiary proof in admissible form establishing that it had, at most, a general power to enforce safety standards and did not have supervisory control over the method or manner of the work of plaintiff Richard Palmatier ( see, Comes v. New York State Elec. Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876, 877; McCune v. Black Riv. Constructors, 225 A.D.2d 1078, 1079; Enderlin v. Hebert Indus. Insulation, 224 A.D.2d 1020; Brezinski v. Olympia York Water St. Co., 218 A.D.2d 633, 634-635). Neither plaintiffs nor defendant Castle Electrical Contractors, Inc. (Castle), responded with the requisite evidentiary proof sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact ( see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324). The speculation of plaintiffs and Castle that further discovery would yield factual issues precluding summary judgment is insufficient to defeat the motion ( see, Armatys v. Edwards, 229 A.D.2d 906; Penn Iron Metal Co. v. Gross, 192 A.D.2d 1059, 1060; Levy, King White Adv. v. Gallery of Homes, 177 A.D.2d 967; cf., CPLR 3212 [f]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J. — Summary Judgment.)