Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff Jose F. Pulgarin was injured when a tree on the defendants' property fell onto the car that he was operating. In cases involving fallen trees, a property owner will be held liable only if he or she knew or should have known of the dangerous condition of the tree ( see Ivancic v Olmstead, 66 NY2d 349, 351, cert denied 476 US 1117; Harris v Village of E. Hills, 41 NY2d 446, 450; Lillis v Wessolock, 50 AD3d 969; Lahowin v Ganley, 265 AD2d 530; Golan v Astuto, 242 AD2d 669). The defendants established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that they could not be charged with either actual or constructive notice of the alleged defective condition of the tree ( see Ivancic v Olmstead, 66 NY2d at 351; Lahowin v Ganley, 265 AD2d 530; Asnip v State of New York, 300 AD2d 328; Golan v Astuto, 242 AD2d 669). In opposition, Pulgarin failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether there were readily-observable manifestations of decay ( see Ivancic v Olmstead, 66 NY2d at 351; Lahowin v Ganley, 265 AD2d 530; cf. Crawford v Forest Hills Gardens, 34 AD3d 415).