Inasmuch as Kilian failed to meet his burden in that regard, we do not consider the adequacy of plaintiff's opposing submissions (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853 [1985]; Schultz v Alamo Group Inc., 192 A.D.3d 1630, 1631-1632 [4th Dept 2021]). We do not address Kilian's contention that the court erred in denying that part of his motion seeking dismissal of the common-law premises liability claim against him.
Inasmuch as Kilian failed to meet his burden in that regard, we do not consider the adequacy of plaintiff's opposing submissions (seeWinegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr. , 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 [1985] ; Schultz v. Alamo Group Inc. , 192 A.D.3d 1630, 1631-1632, 140 N.Y.S.3d 854 [4th Dept. 2021] ). We do not address Kilian's contention that the court erred in denying that part of his motion seeking dismissal of the common-law premises liability claim against him.
Inasmuch as Kilian failed to meet his burden in that regard, we do not consider the adequacy of plaintiff's opposing submissions (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853 [1985]; Schultz v Alamo Group Inc., 192 A.D.3d 1630, 1631-1632 [4th Dept 2021]). We do not address Kilian's contention that the court erred in denying that part of his motion seeking dismissal of the common-law premises liability claim against him.