Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
As a general rule, a municipality will not be held responsible for the negligent design of a highway it does not own or control ( see Ernest v. Red Cr. Cent. School Dist., 93 NY2d 664, 675; Kovalsky v. Village of Yaphank, 235 AD2d 459; Ossmer v. Bates, 97 AD2d 871, 872). Moreover, a municipality cannot be held liable for the failure to maintain in a reasonably safe condition a road it does not own or control unless it affirmatively undertakes such a duty ( see Ernest v. Red Cr. Cent. School Dist., supra). Here, the defendant, the Town of East Fishkill, sustained its initial burden of demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the accident occurred on a state highway which it did not own ( see Alcalay v. Town of North Hempstead, 262 AD2d 258; Silver v. Cooper, 199 AD2d 255). The evidence that the plaintiffs submitted in opposition to the motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Town assumed control of the subject highway, or affirmatively undertook a duty to maintain it ( see Ernest v. Red Cr. Cent. School Dist., supra; Kovalsky v. Village of Yaphank, supra; Murray v. Wolff, 242 AD2d 265; Hough v. Hicks, 160 AD2d 1114). The plaintiffs' submissions also failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Town assumed a special duty to post a crossing guard at the accident site ( see Estate of Konstantatos v. County of Suffolk, 208 AD2d 889; cf. Florence v. Goldberg, 44 NY2d 189). Furthermore, the plaintiffs' mere hope that evidence sufficient to defeat the motion may be uncovered during the discovery process did not provide a basis for denial of the motion ( see Sammarco v. City of New York, 16 AD3d 657; Grodski v. Greenpoint Bank, 16 AD3d 623; Spatola v. Gelco Corp., 5 AD3d 469).