Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly found that the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, offering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact ( see, Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to produce evidentiary proof sufficient to require a trial. Bare conclusory and speculative allegations are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment ( see, Maviglia v. Inapart Props. Corp., 149 A.D.2d 482). The plaintiff's belief that additional discovery might reveal something helpful to his case does not provide a basis pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f) for postponing a determination of a summary judgment motion ( see, Bryan v. City of New York, 206 A.D.2d 448; Plotkin v. Franklin, 179 A.D.2d 746).
Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.