DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants, as the parties moving for summary judgment, had the burden of establishing, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853). This burden is not met merely by citing gaps in the plaintiff's case ( see Saryian v. Ramana, 305 A.D.2d 400; Kucera v. Waldbaums Supermarkets, 304 A.D.2d 531, 532; Dalton v. Educational Testing Serv., 294 A.D.2d 462, 463). Assuming that the defendants made a prima facie case concerning the identity of the manufacturer and the lack of a specific product defect that caused the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff carried her burden of raising a triable issue of fact ( cf. Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). She established a reasonable probability that the defendants manufactured the exercise bicycle on which she allegedly was injured ( see Healey v. Firestone Tire Rubber Co., 87 N.Y.2d 596, 601; cf. Brown v. Elm Plumbing Supply, 271 A.D.2d 469; Escarria v. American Gage Mfg Co., 261 A.D.2d 434). Moreover, the particular defect, if any, that caused the injury can be established by circumstantial evidence ( see Otis v. Bausch Lomb, 143 A.D.2d 649, 650; cf. Klein v. Ford Motor Co., 303 A.D.2d 376, 378). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.