Opinion
March 14, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
"`Photographs may be used to prove constructive notice of an alleged defect shown in the photographs if they are taken reasonably close to the time of the accident and there is testimony that the condition at the time of the accident was substantially as shown in the photographs'" (Davis v. County of Nassau, 166 A.D.2d 498, 499; see also, Taylor v. New York City Tr. Auth., 48 N.Y.2d 903). Contrary to the plaintiffs' contentions, the court in the instant case properly refused to admit in evidence several photographs for the purpose of proving constructive notice of the defect alleged herein, as the photographs were taken four years after the accident.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' further contention, the photographs could not be properly admitted as evidence of a dangerous condition (cf., Saporito v. City of New York, 14 N.Y.2d 474).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Krausman, JJ., concur.