Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Although the defendant correctly asserts that the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable under the circumstances of this case ( see Matter of Hunter, 6 AD3d 117, 121, affd 4 NY3d 260), the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. In opposition to the plaintiffs' motion establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendant failed to submit evidence in admissible form establishing that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover under its insurance policy. Mere conclusory allegations, expressions of hope, or unsubstantiated assertions may not defeat a motion for summary judgment ( see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; Savino Oil Heating Co. v. Rana Mgt. Corp., 161 AD2d 635). Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was properly granted ( see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Caporino v. Travelers Ins. Co., 62 NY2d 234).
The defendant's cross motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the doctrine of laches was properly denied ( see Fidelity Natl. Tit. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. First N.Y. Tit. Abstract, 269 AD2d 560; Cohen v. Krantz, 227 AD2d 581).