Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant, City of New York, established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action arising from a slip-and-fall accident by showing that the accident occurred on public school premises, and that it does not operate, maintain, or control the public schools ( see Goldes v City of New York, 19 AD3d 448, 449; Cruz v City of New York, 288 AD2d 250; Awad v City of New York, 278 AD2d 441; Campbell v City of New York, 203 AD2d 504, 505), which fall under "the exclusive care, custody and control of the [New York City] Board of Education, an entity separate and distinct from the City" ( Bleiberg v City of New York, 43 AD3d 969, 971; see NY City Charter § 521; Education Law § 2590-b [a]; Corzino v City of New York, 56 AD3d 370, 371; Perez v City of New York, 41 AD3d 378; Nacipucha v City of New York, 18 Misc 3d 846, 853-854). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly awarded to the City since it cannot be held liable for the negligent maintenance of school property ( see Goldes v City of New York, 19 AD3d at 449; Cruz v City of New York, 288 AD2d at 250; Goldman v City of New York, 287 AD2d 689).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.