DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The plaintiff, a patron of the defendant's store, allegedly injured her hand while attempting to pull open an entrance door. The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, as the defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The door was not an inherently dangerous instrument and the defendant was not obligated to warn the plaintiff that the door would not open (see, Carter v. New York City Hous. Auth., 260 A.D.2d 528; Wisloh v. Air-A-Plane Corp., 251 A.D.2d 657; Tjepkema v. Rochdale Meat Mkt., 238 A.D.2d 333; Green v. New York City Housing Auth., 82 A.D.2d 780, affd 55 N.Y.2d 966; Cuevas v. 73rd Cent. Park West Corp., 26 A.D.2d 239, affd 21 N.Y.2d 745).
The plaintiff's mere hope that further discovery will uncover evidence to prove her case is insufficient to postpone a decision on the motion (see, Waste Servs. Inc. v. Jamaica Ash Rubbish Removal Co., 262 A.D.2d 401, 403; Quinones v. Board of Educ. of the City of N. Y., 248 A.D.2d 696).