Opinion
May 18, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Newmark, J.).
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the appellants' cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the appellants' cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the appellants payable by the plaintiffs.
The appellants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint ( see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324). The appellants established that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that they had the requisite prior notice of the alleged ice patch on which the injured plaintiff slipped ( see, Simmons v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 N.Y.2d 972; Reynolds v. Masonville Rod Gun Club, 247 A.D.2d 682; Denton v. Klein Middle School, 234 A.D.2d 257; Grillo v. New York City Tr. Auth., 214 A.D.2d 648; see also, Mercer v. City of New York, 88 N.Y.2d 955). The plaintiffs' opposing assertions are premised upon speculative allegations which fail to raise triable issues of fact with respect to the question of notice ( see, Bertman v. Board of Mgrs., 233 A.D.2d 283; Grillo v. New York City Tr. Auth., supra).
The appellants' remaining contentions lack merit ( see, DiNardo v. Patcam Serv. Sta., 228 A.D.2d 543; 747 Third Ave. Corp. v. Killarney, 225 A.D.2d 375).
Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.