Opinion
April 25, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiffs failed to offer any evidence in support of their motion to restore the action to the trial calendar beyond their unsupported allegations that the City was on notice concerning the allegedly defective sidewalk. Therefore, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying their motion.
Because the plaintiffs' notice to admit sought the admission of contested ultimate issues and not clear-cut matters of fact about which there could be no reasonable dispute, it was palpably improper and the City was under no obligation to respond (see, Miller v Hilman Kelly Co., 177 A.D.2d 1036; see also, Howlan v Rosol, 139 A.D.2d 799, citing Marguess v City of New York, 30 A.D.2d 782, affd 28 N.Y.2d 527). Bracken, J.P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.