Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs contend that the defendants' negligent placement of a "parking delineator" created a tripping hazard. The defendants failed to establish a prima facie case that they did not create the condition, or that the condition was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous ( see Manicone v City of New York, 75 AD3d 535, 537; Shah v Mercy Med. Ctr, 71 AD3d 1120).
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 141-142; Manicone v City of New York, 75 AD 3d at 537; Cooper v American Carpet Restoration Servs., Inc., 69 AD3d 552, 554).
Accordingly, since the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we need not examine the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' opposition papers, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied.