Indeed, one of the cases cited in support of the motion (which perhaps inaccurately states a standard of law as if "evidentiary proof" is required), held that the Court could not "conclusively determine whether plaintiff has a cause of action" and indicated that disclosure was needed (see Nab-Tern Constructors v City of New York, 123 A.D.2d 571, 572-73 [1st Dept 1986]; see also Singh v Wesco Ins. Co., 201 A.D.3d 450, 450 [1st Dept 2022] ["because discovery has not been completed, it cannot be said at this stage of the litigation that the allegations are 'patently insufficient' on their face"]). Under this standard, the Court should examine but should not decide the merits unless it is palpably devoid of merit on its face as a matter of law (see Ancrum v St. Barnabas Hosp., 301 A.D.2d 474, 475 [1st Dept 2003]).