Opinion
February 20, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint and all cross claims insofar as they are asserted against the Incorporated Village of Valley Stream are dismissed.
The defendant Incorporated Village of Valley Stream (hereinafter the Village) met its initial burden of demonstrating that it lacked actual or constructive notice of an alleged defect located on the Valley Stream Village Green ( see, Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065; see also, Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 967; Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836; Milea v. Ames Dept. Store, 219 A.D.2d 798; Eaton v. Pyramid Co., 216 A.D.2d 823; cf., Simmons v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 N.Y.2d 972; Grillo v. New York City Tr. Auth., 214 A.D.2d 648). In opposing the motion, the plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of material questions of fact with respect to the Village's actual or constructive notice of the defect ( see, Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp., supra). Under these circumstances, the Village's cross motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Ritter, J.P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.