The evidence offered in support of its motion failed to establish, prima facie, that it neither created nor had actual notice of the hazardous condition ( see generally Joachim v 1824 Church Ave., Inc., 12 AD3d 409, 410). To the extent that NYCTA relies only on a defense based on the theory of qualified governmental immunity, that defense is without merit ( see generally Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579, 589; cf. Urbaniak v Town of Clay, 237 AD2d 875, 876-877). NYCTA's failure to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law required denial of its motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers ( see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324).
Similarly, the Town demonstrated that it made a reasoned determination to designate the road as a seasonal road and to commit to limited improvements and maintenance because of the road's low priority and the Town's responsibility to maintain more heavily traveled roads. Plaintiffs failed to raise a triable question of fact concerning the reasonableness of those planning decisions or the adequacy of those studies ( see, Affleck v. Buckley, supra; Schuster v. McDonald, supra, at 474-475; Urbaniak v. Town of Clay, 237 A.D.2d 875, 876, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 804). "[S]omething more than a mere choice between conflicting opinions of experts is required before the State or one of its subdivisions may be charged with a failure to discharge its duty to plan highways for the safety of the traveling public" ( Weiss v. Fote, supra, at 588).
The State is afforded qualified immunity for its highway planning and design decisions, unless it can be shown that the State's plan evolved without adequate study or lacked a reasonable basis (Friedman, 67 NY2d at 283; Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579, 584-586 [1960]). As the proponent of this motion for summary judgment, Defendant bears the burden of establishing that the State is entitled to qualified immunity, for its design and planning of the drainage for I-690 at the location of this accident, and that the selection and design of the drainage were based upon adequate study and had a reasonable basis (Lifson v City of Syracuse, 41 AD3d 1292, 1293 [4th Dept 2007]; Urbaniak v Town of Clay, 237 AD2d 875 [4th Dept 1997]).