Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of defendants County of Oswego and the County of Oswego Department of Public Works for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' cause of action alleging that those defendants were negligent in controlling traffic at the intersection of County Routes 10 and 12. In moving for summary judgment, defendants were required to establish their defense "sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment" in their favor (CPLR 3212 [b]; see, Iselin Co. v Mann Judd Landau, 71 N.Y.2d 420, 425). Defendants met that burden by offering expert opinion evidence that traffic control at the intersection was maintained in a reasonably safe manner and in accordance with established standards (see, Lopes v Rostad, 45 N.Y.2d 617; Weiss v Fote, 7 N.Y.2d 579, 584-586).
In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs failed to offer expert opinion evidence that the traffic control plan at the subject intersection evolved without adequate study or lacked a reasonable basis (see, Green v County of Niagara, 184 A.D.2d 1044). Moreover, plaintiffs' submission of the Local Accident Surveillance Project failed to show a similarity between the subject accident and the previous accidents (cf., Hyde v County of Rensselaer, 51 N.Y.2d 927, 929). Thus, plaintiffs failed to submit evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of material questions of fact (see, Iselin Co. v Mann Judd Landau, supra).