The motion court erred in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff did not sufficiently demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065). Specifically, plaintiff's evidence did not establish that defendant bank had prior knowledge that the dog that attacked and injured the infant was present on the premises and that it had exhibited vicious propensities
Similarly, there was no proof of the dog's vicious tendencies or the bank's knowledge of such tendencies. The deposition testimony did not establish that the dog in question was present on the premises long enough for the bank to learn of its vicious tendencies or its presence, and no other evidence to that effect was presented. Photographs of the signs posted on the premises warning of a vicious dog are not pertinent to the issue of notice without additional, corroborative evidence of the bank's prior knowledge of a dog's vicious propensities (Arcara v Whytas, 219 A.D.2d 871; cf., Ford v Steindon, 35 Misc.2d 339).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.