Schwartzman v Wertz, 153 Misc. 2d 187, (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1991), aff'd., 179 A.D. 2d 540 (1st Dep't. 1992). As moving defendants have met their burden of proof, and plaintiff has failed to present evidentiary facts to refute this proof, or identify any material issue of fact in that regard, the motion must be granted. Moving defendants have established, through the affidavit of the property manager and the terms of the lease that they owed no duty to plaintiff.

In addition, although plaintiff urges a denial of the motions, speculating as to the moving defendants' involvement herein, the mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment motion may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to deny the motion or to postpone a decision on the motion (see Arbizu v REM Transp., 20 AD3d 375 [2005]; Kershis v City of New York, 303 AD2d 643 [2003]; Associates Commercial Corp. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 298 AD2d 537 [2002]). Moreover, it is not appropriate to subject the moving defendants to the time and expense of preparing a defense to this action and participating in numerous depositions so that plaintiff can then sort out who is ultimately responsible for her injuries (see Schwartzman v Wertz, 153 Misc 2d 187 [Sup Ct, NY County 1991], aff'd 179 AD2d 540 [1992]; see also Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. v Vigilant Ins. Co., 157 Misc 2d 198 [Sup Ct, N.Y. County 1993]).

In addition, although plaintiff urges a denial of the motions, speculating as to the moving defendants' involvement herein, the mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment motion may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to deny the motion or to postpone a decision on the motion (see Arbizu v REM Transp., 20 AD3d 375; Kershis v City of New York, 303 AD2d 643; Associates Commercial Corp. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 298 AD2d 537). Moreover, it is not appropriate to subject the moving defendants to the time and expense of preparing a defense to this action and participating in numerous depositions so that plaintiff can then sort out who is ultimately responsible for her injuries (see Schwartzman v Wertz, 153 Misc 2d 187 [Sup Ct, NY County 1991], affd 179 AD2d 540; see also Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. v Vigilant Ins. Co., 157 Misc 2d 198 [Sup Ct, N.Y. County 1993]). In view of the foregoing, these motions by Verizon, Lockwood and Welsbach for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint and all cross-claims asserted against these defendants are GRANTED.

It is an unwarranted imposition on those defendant insurers whose policies cannot be deemed to cover for Milken, Levine and associates to compel them to appear and defend, and possibly endure years of extensive and expensive pretrial discovery when even their potential liability cannot be demonstrated. (See, Schwartzman v Wertz, 153 Misc.2d 187, affd 179 A.D.2d 540.) The bonds in effect at the date of discovery may be implicated, but all other bonds are exonerated.