EISEN v. CITY OF NEW YORK

Because it was dark at the time of the occurrence, questions of fact exist as to whether defendant provided plaintiff with a reasonably safe place to alight ( compare, Blye v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 124 A.D.2d 106, aff'd 72 N.Y.2d 888; Diedrick v. City of New York, 162 A.D.2d 496; Otonoga v. City of New York, 234 A.D.2d 592). Defendants, as proponents of a summary judgment motion, failed to meet their burden of tendering evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, inter alia, that an alternative safe path was available and that plaintiff knowingly chose a hazardous path ( see, Connolly v. Rogers, 195 A.D.2d 649, 651).

Concur — Lerner, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.