Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint after the opening statement. We disagree. The trial court correctly dismissed the case after viewing the facts as stated by the plaintiffs as true, after reviewing the pleadings, and after the plaintiffs were given the opportunity to present their offer of proof. It was clear based on the plaintiffs' submissions that there was no legal basis for them to succeed (see, De Vito v. Katsch, 157 A.D.2d 413, 416). The accident occurred on a public sidewalk, and there was no offer of proof that the sidewalk was constructed in a special manner for benefit of the defendant landowners (see, Kobet v. Consolidated Edison Co., 176 A.D.2d 785, 786), and no offer of proof that the defendants created the defective condition (see, Giammarino v Angelo's Royal Pastry Shop, 168 A.D.2d 423, 424). Thompson, J.P., Miller, Lawrence and Copertino, JJ., concur.