Here, the defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the alleged condition was readily observable by the reasonable use of the plaintiff’s senses, and was not inherently dangerous. They submitted, inter alia, affidavits of the apartment building’s superintendent and of a licensed engineer stating that the lobby where the accident occurred was regularly maintained and compliant with the applicable building codes (see Murray v Dockside 500 Mar., Inc., 32 AD3d at 833). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Photographic evidence of the accident scene submitted by the plaintiff was insufficient to defeat the defendants’ prima facie showing (see Martin v City of New York, 82 AD3d 653, 654 [2011]; Remes v 513 W. 26th Realty, LLC, 73 AD3d 665, 666 [2010]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court, upon reargument, properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.P., Eng, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.