Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Contrary to the appellants' contentions, they failed to satisfy their burden of establishing, prima facie, that the complained-of condition was not defective, or that they had no notice of a defective condition ( see Kucevic v Three Park Ave. Bldg. Co., L.P., 55 AD3d 792; Kucera v Waldbaums Supermarkets, 304 AD2d 531; cf. Mansfield v Dolcemascolo, 34 AD3d 763). The deposition testimony of both appellants' principals demonstrates that each appellant had knowledge of the manner in which the complained-of condition was constructed.
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.