SEIDENBERG v. PAUL

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting proof in admissible form that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851). In response, the plaintiff failed to submit proof sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

RITTER, J.P., SANTUCCI, FEUERSTEIN and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.