DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell in an icy parking lot owned by one of the defendants. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We affirm.
In support of their motion, the defendants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (cf. Voss v. D C Parking, 299 A.D.2d 346; Simmonds v. Long Island R.R. Co., 296 A.D.2d 487). Thus, their motion for summary judgment was properly denied regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposing papers (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr, 64 N.Y.2d 851; Karras v. County of Westchester, 272 A.D.2d 377, 378). There are questions of fact, inter alia, as to whether the defendants had constructive notice of the alleged dangerous icy condition of the parking lot, and whether snow and ice removal was performed in a timely and non-negligent manner (see Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836; Wilson v. Rancanelli Const., 295 A.D.2d 423, 424).
RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, KRAUSMAN and CRANE, JJ., concur.