ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the defendants' contention, after they made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the Supreme Court properly considered the affidavit of the plaintiff's expert which was submitted in opposition to the motion (see, Blade v. Town of N. Hempstead, 277 A.D.2d 268; Cutsogeorge v. Hertz Corp., 264 A.D.2d 752). There is no evidence that the plaintiff intentionally or willfully failed to disclose the identity of his expert witness, nor has prejudice to the defendants been shown. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in considering the expert's affidavit despite the plaintiff's failure to serve a notice pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) (see, Blade v. Town of N. Hempstead, supra; Martin v. NYRAC, Inc., 258 A.D.2d 443).
Furthermore, the expert's affidavit, which was neither conclusory nor speculative, established the existence of a material issue of fact as to whether the defendants created or contributed to the creation of the defect which allegedly caused the plaintiff's injuries (see, Erbstein v. Savasatit, 274 A.D.2d 445; Rodolitz v. Boston-Old Colony Ins. Co., 74 A.D.2d 821; cf., Tucker v. Elimelech, 184 A.D.2d 636).
SANTUCCI, J.P., S. MILLER, FRIEDMANN and COZIER, JJ., concur.