DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. "To impose liability upon the defendants, there must be evidence tending to show the existence of a dangerous or defective condition and that the defendants either created the condition or had actual or constructive knowledge of it" ( Richardson v. Campanelli, 297 A.D.2d 794; see Staniewicz v. Stop Shop Super Food Market Co., 3 A.D.3d 487).
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as there was no evidence that a dangerous condition existed ( see Marusevich v. Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co., 309 A.D.2d 839, 840; Crawford v. Pick Quick Foods, 300 A.D.2d 431, 432; Brenner v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 296 A.D.2d 519; Aquila v. Nathan's Famous, 284 A.D.2d 287; Maldonado v. Su Jong Lee, 278 A.D.2d 206; Pacht v. International Bus. Machs., 228 A.D.2d 422). "Rather, the proof established that the plaintiff's own negligence was the sole proximate cause of [her] injuries" ( Robles v. Ascan Welding Serv., 200 A.D.2d 564; see Bennett v. Town of Brookhaven, 233 A.D.2d 356).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO and ADAMS, JJ., concur.