Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"The purpose of the notice of claim requirement is to afford the municipal corporation adequate opportunity to investigate the circumstances 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, Whitfield v. Town of Oyster Bay, 225 A.D.2d 763; Santiago v. New York City Hous. Auth., 220 A.D.2d 655) The requirements of the statute are met when the notice describes the accident with sufficient particularity so as to enable the defendant to locate the defect, conduct a proper investigation, and assess the merits of the claim ( see, Caselli v. City of New York, 105 A.D.2d 251, 253; see also, Walston v. City of New York, 229 A.D.2d 485; Fendig v. City of New York, 132 A.D.2d 520).
In the instant case, the court properly granted the City's cross motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The notice of claim, which merely stated that the accident occurred "at or about Clarkson Avenue and Rogers Avenue, Brooklyn", failed to describe the location of the alleged defect with sufficient particularity ( see, Harper v. City of New York, 129 A.D.2d 770; see also, Frankfort v. City of New York, 159 A.D.2d 680; Lupo v. City of New York, 160 A.D.2d 773) Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, neither the photographs nor the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing sufficiently clarified the notice of claim ( see, Matter of Valle v. New York City Hous. Auth., 224 A.D.2d 433; Setton v. City of New York, 174 A.D.2d 723).
We have examined the plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Thompson and Luciano, JJ., concur.