DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The notice of claim did not comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e(2), because it failed to identify the location of the accident with sufficient particularity to enable the defendant to locate the alleged defect, conduct a meaningful investigation, and assess the merits of the injured plaintiff's claim ( see Richard v. Town of Oyster Bay, 300 A.D.2d 561; Shpak v. New York City Tr. Auth., 292 A.D.2d 590; Ames v. City of New York, 280 A.D.2d 625, 626). The notice of claim failed to identify on which of the six tennis courts in Cow Meadow Park the injured plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell, and the location of the alleged defect on the tennis court's surface ( see Matter of Light v. County of Nassau, 187 A.D.2d 720). Furthermore, the injured plaintiff's testimony at the hearing held pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, the bill of particulars, and the photographs provided to the defendant failed to clarify the notice of claim ( see Edgehill v. City of New York, 260 A.D.2d 597, 598; Yankana v. City of New York, 246 A.D.2d 645; Whitfield v. Town of Oyster Bay, 225 A.D.2d 763, 764). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
SANTUCCI, J.P., SMITH, LUCIANO and ADAMS, JJ., concur.