DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). In opposition, there was no showing by the plaintiff that the theory of "inherent compulsion" is applicable here ( see Benitez v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 N.Y.2d 650, 658). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., SCHMIDT, RIVERA and LIFSON, JJ., concur.