Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
As a general rule, the decision as to whether to install a traffic control device is a discretionary governmental function which will not expose a municipality to liability (see, Cimino v City of New York, 54 A.D.2d 843, affd 43 N.Y.2d 966; see also, Weiss v Fote, 7 N.Y.2d 579). However, once the municipality has determined to have a traffic control device installed to remedy a dangerous condition, an unjustified delay in its installation may constitute a breach of the municipality's duty to keep its roadways in a reasonably safe condition (see, Friedman v State of New York, 67 N.Y.2d 271, 286; Marren v State of New York, 142 A.D.2d 717, 720). In the instant action, there is no dispute that in February 1984 the City of New York ordered the installation of a traffic control signal at the intersection where the accident at issue occurred but that the installation of the signal did not occur until October 1984. The record contains sufficient proof to create a question of fact as to whether the defendants Welsbach Electric Corp. and L.K. Comstock Company, Inc., with whom the City of New York had contracted to install the traffic control signal at the subject intersection, had unreasonably delayed the installation of the traffic control device (see, Friedman v State of New York, supra). We, therefore, conclude that the Supreme Court properly denied the motions for summary judgment. Thompson, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.