Opinion
October 20, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.).
Because it was dark at the time of the occurrence, questions of fact exist as to whether defendant provided plaintiff with a reasonably safe place to alight ( compare, Blye v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 124 A.D.2d 106, aff'd 72 N.Y.2d 888; Diedrick v. City of New York, 162 A.D.2d 496; Otonoga v. City of New York, 234 A.D.2d 592). Defendants, as proponents of a summary judgment motion, failed to meet their burden of tendering evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, inter alia, that an alternative safe path was available and that plaintiff knowingly chose a hazardous path ( see, Connolly v. Rogers, 195 A.D.2d 649, 651).
Concur — Lerner, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.