Opinion
May 3, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the cross motion of the defendant Brooklyn Union Gas Company (hereinafter Brooklyn Union) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it was properly granted notwithstanding the fact that discovery had not yet been completed, since "`there was only hope and speculation as to what additional discovery would uncover in the present situation'" (Quinones v. Board of Educ., 248 A.D.2d 696; see, Mazzaferro v. Barterama Corp., 218 A.D.2d 643; see also, Toth v. Pergament Home Ctr., 250 A.D.2d 599).
Insofar as the plaintiffs contend that Brooklyn Union failed to comply with discovery demands, "[a party] may not be compelled to produce information that does not exist or which he [or she] does not possess" (Corriel v. Volkswagen of Am., 127 A.D.2d 729, 731; see, Lauro v. Top of the Class Caterers, 169 A.D.2d 708; Rosado v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., 103 A.D.2d 395, 398). Accordingly, the cross motion to strike the answer of Brooklyn Union on that ground was properly denied.
Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.