It cannot be determined from the record if Turner and Williams ever sought to depose New York Crane. If discovery is still outstanding, they have only themselves to blame for not having completed it over such a span of time ( see Ptacek v City Wide Asphalt Paving Co., 305 AD2d 119, 120). In light of the extensive deposition testimony on the employment issue that has already taken place and the lack of a showing of what further evidence might be unearthed, the asserted need for further discovery reduces itself to a "mere hope," which is insufficient to defeat summary judgment ( see National Assn. of Sec. Dealers, Inc. v Fiero, 33 AD3d 547, 548).
In a recent case, the Appellate Division, First Department, held that an "IAS court also properly rejected plaintiff's CPLR 3212 (f) request for leave to take [non-party] depositions.... Denial of such leave was a proper exercise of discretion since plaintiff had ample opportunity to take the ... depositions" (Ptacek v City Wide Asphalt Paving Co., 305 AD2d 119, 120 [1st Dept 2003]).
As no note of issue is yet filed, Shen and plaintiff still may develop the record, so that it is fully adequate to determine whether defendant is entitled to the dispositive relief he seeks. See Mayer v. New York City Tr. Auth. , 39 AD3d 349 (1st Dep't 2007); Ptacek v. City Wide Asphalt Paving Co., 305 AD2d 119, 120 (1st Dep't 2003). Consequently, the court denies defendant's motion for summary judgment, at least until third party defendant Shen and plaintiff have an opportunity to depose defendant and each other.