Opinion
October 31, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed on the law, with costs, appellant's motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint and any cross-claims are dismissed insofar as they are asserted against him.
The respondents' opposition to the appellant's motion for summary judgment was based on the mere hope that discovery would uncover evidence that the alleged defect, an elevation in the sidewalk, was caused by actions taken by the abutting landowner, the appellant, as opposed to the normal growth of an adjacent tree (see, Zizzo v. City of New York, 176 A.D.2d 722; Kennerly v Campbell Chain Co., 133 A.D.2d 669). The respondents, therefore, failed to provide a basis, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f), for postponing a decision on the appellant's summary judgment motion (see, Sarver v. Martyn, 161 A.D.2d 623). Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.