GRODSKI v. GREENPOINT BANK

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff was using a friend's swimming pool when he dove into the shallow end of the water and sustained serious injuries. The plaintiff had used the pool a number of times before the accident and was well aware that it had a shallow end and a deep end.

The defendant Greenpoint Bank (hereinafter Greenpoint), which had commenced an action to foreclose a mortgage on the property where the swimming pool was located, established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff's act of diving into the shallow end of the pool was the proximate cause of the accident ( see Smith v. Stark, 67 NY2d 693; Bassi v. Cucinello, 237 AD2d 238; Bird v. Zelin, 237 AD2d 107; see also Clifford v. Harrow Stores, 256 AD2d 602; Finguerra v. Conn, 252 AD2d 463; Edmonds v. Fodera, 239 AD2d 383; Valdez v. City of New York, 148 AD2d 697; Campbell v. Muswim Pools, 147 AD2d 977). In response, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff's mere expressions of hope that further discovery would reveal something helpful to his case provided no basis for denying Greenpoint's motion for summary judgment ( see Manney v. GE Med. Sys., 7 AD3d 763; Mazzaferro v. Barterama Corp., 218 AD2d 643).