Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant Catalanello contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant, Getty Refining Marketing Company (hereinafter Getty), there being triable issues of fact. We disagree.
Any interest which Getty may have had in the service station from which the gasoline is alleged to have leaked ended in 1981. Getty's liability in negligence for any dangerous condition which may have existed on that property terminated when Catalanello took possession and control of it before the injury was sustained, and when Catalanello had a reasonable opportunity to discover any alleged dangerous condition, by making prompt inspection and necessary repairs. This is so even where a nuisance exists (see, New York Tel. Co. v Mobil Oil Corp., 99 A.D.2d 185; Pharm v Lituchy, 283 N.Y. 130).
Furthermore, Catalanello's conclusory allegations regarding Getty's concealment of an alleged 1974 gasoline leak, and of affirmative acts of negligence on the part of Getty (see, Inman v Binghamton Hous. Auth., 3 N.Y.2d 137), are insufficient, as a matter of law, to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see, Spearmon v Times Sq. Stores Corp., 96 A.D.2d 552). Brown, J.P., Eiber, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.