ALEXANDER v. RUM POINT TAVERN

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.