Abramoff, 288 AD2d 121, 122 (1st Dep't 2001). Thus, plaintiff has made a prima
facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and defendant has supplied no
evidence sufficient to defeat the granting of this motion. Defendant has failed to raise an issue of
fact sufficient to defeat plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Additionally, defendant states that plaintiff's motion is premature in that plaintiff has failed
to comply with his discovery obligations and is purposely withholding information relevant to
defendant's defense. "[W]here a party is unable to effectively oppose a motion for summary
judgment because the evidence needed is within the exclusive knowledge of the moving party,
the court may deny the motion..." Classic Moments Co. v Akata, 176 AD2d 567, 567
(1st Dep't 1991); CPLR 3212 (f). However, defendant has failed to make this showing by failing
"to show that facts essential to justify opposition to the motion may emerge upon further
discovery. A grant of summary judgment cannot be avoided by a claimed need for discovery
unless some evidentiary basis is offered to suggest that discovery may lead to relevant evidence."
Bailey v New York City Tr. Auth., 270 AD2d 156, 157 (1st Dep't 2000). Speculation
alone is inadequate, and furthermore, a granting of summary judgment for plaintiff does not
prevent defendant from obtaining discovery, including a deposition, on defendant's
counterclaims. Defendant fails to articulate any relevant evidence within plaintiff's control.
Presumably, defendant would be in exclusive custody and control of evidence relating to his
defenses, including the bank account he deposited the checks into and the written documentation
of notice to plaintiff of the name and address of the banking organization. As defendant has