Here, in support of its motion, CHC failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853). CHC failed to establish that the plaintiff tripped over the remnant of a City parking sign and that it had no duty to maintain the subject section of the sidewalk pursuant to section 7-210 of the Administrative Code (see generally Rivera v City of New York, 192 A.D.3d 932, 933; Harakidas v City of New York, 86 A.D.3d 624, 627-628). Since CHC failed to meet its initial burden as the movant, it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d at 853).