DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
It is well settled that the proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). Once this showing has been made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of a material issue of fact which would require a trial (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, supra).
Each defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiffs' opposition thereto consisted of nothing more than conjecture and speculation, and thus was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Simmons v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 84 N.Y.2d 972; Bernstein v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 1020). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the respective motions for summary judgment (see, Stewart v. Yeshiva Nachlas Haleviym, 186 A.D.2d 731).