ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
"The purpose of the notice of claim requirement is to afford the municipal corporation adequate opportunity to investigate the circumstance[s] surrounding the accident and explore the merits of the claim while the information is likely to be available" (Altmayer v. City of New York, 149 A.D.2d 638, 639 ; see also, Adrian v. Town of Oyster Bay, 262 A.D.2d 433 [2d Dept., June 14, 1999]; Yankana v. City of New York, 246 A.D.2d 645 ). To satisfy the requirements of the statute, the notice of claim must describe the accident with sufficient particularity to enable the defendant to locate the defect, conduct a proper investigation, and assess the merits of the claim (see, Yankana v. City of New York, supra;Walston v. City of New York, 229 A.D.2d 485 ; Caselli v. City of New York, 105 A.D.2d 251 ).
In the instant case, the plaintiff' s notice of claim alleged that his car went over a "dip, hole, excavation, elevation, obstruction, depression in the road at the intersection of Bethpage Sweet Hollow Road and Round Swamp Road". Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, this statement failed to describe the nature of the alleged defect or its location with sufficient particularity to allow the defendants to locate it and conduct a timely investigation (see, Adrian v. Town of Oyster Bay, supra; Yankana v. City of New York, supra; Walston v. City of New York, supra; Zapata v. City of New York, 225 A.D.2d 543 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
THOMPSON, J.P., JOY, KRAUSMAN, and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.