Plaintiffs were unable to show that defendant City, whose duty to maintain its roads and highways in a reasonably safe condition is nondelegable ( see Lopes v Rostad, 45 NY2d 617, 623; McAllen v City of New York, 270 AD2d 43), had prior written notice of the alleged defect in the pathway (Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c]), or that either defendant had created the defect through its own affirmative negligence. They further failed to demonstrate that any circumstances exist under which CPC, a contractor, could have owed a duty of care to them ( see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 138). The agreement between the defendants did not indicate that CPC assumed any duty of the City to maintain the premises in a safe condition.
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
[Prior Case History: 19 Misc 3d 1135(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 51009(U).]