On September 23, 2026, the Second Department issued a decision in Bank of Am., N.A. v. Discobath Prods., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op. 05377, holding that a claimed need for more discovery was an insufficient basis to avoid summary judgment, explaining:
Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the affidavit of its special assets group analyst, attached to which were the line of credit agreement and a loan summary printout, demonstrating that Discobath defaulted on the credit agreement it had entered into with the plaintiff and that Kalvaitas had failed to meet his obligation as guarantor on the credit agreement. The Supreme Court correctly determined that the affidavit of the plaintiff’s analyst sufficed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the attached business records as to support, in relevant part, the statement as to the amounts due under the loan as a result of the defendants’ default. Since the attorney affirmation submitted by the defendants in opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint. There is no merit to the defendants’ contention that the motion should have been denied as premature because discovery had yet to take place (see CPLR 3212[f]). It is well settled that the mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to deny the motion. Moreover, the defendants failed to demonstrate that the relevant facts were in the plaintiff’s exclusive control.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).