Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants failed to satisfy their burden in the first instance of establishing, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). This burden cannot be satisfied merely by pointing out gaps in the plaintiff's case, as the defendants did here ( see South v K-Mart Corp., 24 AD3d 748; Xu v 688 Sixth Ave. Realty Co., 19 AD3d 687; Surdo v Albany Collision Supply, Inc., 8 AD3d 655; O'Leary v Bravo Hylan, LLC, 8 AD3d 542; Mennerich v Esposito, 4 AD3d 399, 400; Doe v Orange-Ulster Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 4 AD3d 387, 388-389). Since the defendants failed to satisfy their initial burden of proof, it is un-necessary to analyze the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers ( see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion.