The motion court properly rejected plaintiff's husband's affidavit submitted in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment made after plaintiff had filed a note of issue. Plaintiff never before identified her husband as a person who gave defendants actual notice of the allegedly defective window notwithstanding that defendants had sought the names of any such notice witnesses in demands for a bill of particulars and for the names and addresses of witnesses, and a preliminary conference order had directed plaintiff to disclose any such witnesses in a supplemental bill of particulars (see, Robinson v. New York City Hous. Auth., 183 A.D.2d 434). Nor did plaintiff offer any excuse for this failure to comply with her disclosure obligations. Preclusion of the husband's affidavit necessarily entailed summary judgment in defendants' favor because, without it, plaintiff could not make a prima facie showing that defendants had notice of the alleged defective condition (see, id.; see also, Ortega v. New York City Tr. Auth., 262 A.D.2d 470).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.