Defendant's motion addressed the former condition but not the latter, thereby failing to demonstrate its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see e.g. Breitman v. Dennett, 77 A.D.3d 498, 910 N.Y.S.2d 51 [1st Dept.2010] ; Miller v. Village of E. Hampton, 98 A.D.3d 1007, 1008–1009, 951 N.Y.S.2d 171 [2d Dept.2012] ). In view of defendant's failure to meet its initial burden, it is unnecessary to address the sufficiency of plaintiff's opposition to the motion (see Simantov v. Kipps Taxi, Inc., 68 A.D.3d 661, 891 N.Y.S.2d 393 [1st Dept.2009] ).MAZZARELLI, J.P., MOSKOWITZ, MANZANET–DANIELS, GESMER, JJ., concur.
Consequently, defendants failure to meet their initial burden as to plaintiff Boafo, "renders it unnecessary to consider plaintiff's [Boafo's] opposition to the motion" as to the aforementioned categories. Simantov v Kipps Taxi, Inc., 68 A.D.3d 661 (1st Dept. 2009), Saltzman v. Gardella's Elite Limousine Serv., 2010 NY Slip Op 30204U (NY Sup. Ct. New York County 2010).