ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment since each defendant established that, as an owner or occupant of the land abutting the public sidewalk where the injured plaintiff allegedly fell, it did not, solely by reason of being an abutting owner or occupant, owe to the public a duty to keep the sidewalk in a safe condition (see, Roark v. Hunting, 24 N.Y.2d 470). Furthermore, each defendant established, inter alia, that it did not negligently construct or repair the public sidewalk where the injured plaintiff allegedly fell (see, Hausser v. Giunta, 88 N.Y.2d 449, 452-453).
The granting of summary judgment on this record was not premature, as there was only hope and speculation as to what additional discovery would uncover (see, Martinez v. City of New York, 276 A.D.2d 756, 757; Moriello v. Stormville Airport Antique Show Flea Mkt., 271 A.D.2d 664; Mazzaferro v. Barterama Corp., 218 A.D.2d 643).