MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by denying defendants' motion and third-party defendant's cross motion in part and reinstating the amended complaint and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by her 10-year-old daughter when she tripped and fell on premises owned by defendants. Supreme Court erred in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and that part of third-party defendant's cross motion seeking that same relief, and thus we modify the order accordingly. Defendants and third-party defendant failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issues whether the premises were negligently maintained in a defective or hazardous condition, whether defendants created or had actual or constructive notice of that alleged defect or hazard, and whether the alleged defect or hazard caused the injuries ( see Gonzalez v. Padin, 299 A.D.2d 954; see also Hunley v. University of Rochester Strong Mem. Hosp., 294 A.D.2d 923). In support of the motion and cross motion, defendants and third-party defendant contended that plaintiff would be unable to prove negligence or causation because of the inability of her daughter at her deposition to recall whether she tripped and, if so, what caused her to trip. "It is well established, however, that `[a] moving party must affirmatively [demonstrate] the merits of its cause of action or defense and does not meet its burden by noting gaps in its opponent's proof'" ( Dodge v. City of Hornell Indus. Dev. Agency, 286 A.D.2d 902, 903, quoting Orcutt v. American Linen Supply Co., 212 A.D.2d 979, 980; see Hunley, 294 A.D.2d 923; Kajfasz v. Wal-Mart Stores, 288 A.D.2d 902). Because defendants and third-party defendant failed to meet their initial burden in seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, their request for that relief must be denied without consideration of the sufficiency of plaintiff's opposing papers ( see McDonald v. Snyder, 307 A.D.2d 745, 746; Frazier v. Pioneer Cent. School Dist., 298 A.D.2d 875; Gentile v. University of Rochester Med. Ctr., 292 A.D.2d 874). In any event, we conclude that plaintiff raised triable issues of fact with respect to negligence and causation ( see Gonzalez, 298 A.D.2d at 954-955; Carpenter v. Penn Traffic Co., 296 A.D.2d 842, 843; Kajfasz, 288 A.D.2d 902). Finally, in the absence of a cross appeal by defendants, we affirm the order, as reconciled with the decision ( see Matter of Edward V., 204 A.D.2d 1060, 1061), to the extent that the court granted that part of third-party defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.