The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS. The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT-SUMMARY. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION This personal injury action brought by plaintiff Natalia Urieva individually and on behalf of her infant daughter, N.V., arises out of N.V.’s trip and fall on a rope barrier erected around a grassy area of a park by defendant-landscaper John Mini, Distinctive Landscapes Ltd. (John Mini) in collaboration with defendant-park management company Brookfield Asset Management LLC (Brookfield). John Mini now moves for summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR §3212, dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety and Brookfield’s cross-claims for contribution and indemnification. John Mini argues it did not owe plaintiff a duty of care under the Espinal exceptions, have notice of the purportedly hazardous condition, or was required to install the rope barrier in its contract with Brookfield. Brookfield responds that genuine issues of material fact exist whether John Mini’s decision to use the color green for the rope barrier caused a hazardous condition by camouflaging the rope with the grass it was located on. Plaintiffs cross-move, pursuant to CPLR §4532-b for the court to take judicial notice of Google Map images they suggest show the rope barrier was not present one year prior to the accident but was present two months before the accident. Plaintiffs respond to John Mini’s motion that John Mini is arguing for factual rather than legal analysis, just because the decision was made in collaboration with Brookfield does not change the fact that John Mini created the hazardous condition, and John Mini’s installation of the rope barrier was part of its contractual duties with Brookfield to perform “lawn care.” John Mini replies that the images do not merit consideration for the timing of the rope barrier’s installation does not change whether it is considered a hazardous condition, reiterates that the rope barrier is not dangerous or hazardous, and plaintiffs fail to show that defendants had notice of the hazardous condition. BACKGROUND Plaintiff-infant N.V. is a child who was approximately eight years old at the time of the accident and testified she was a patron of the “Pumphouse Park” (the park) all her life (Counter-Statement of Material Facts, 1, NYSCEF Doc No 76). Brookfield was the park’s property manager and contracted with John Mini to perform “lawn care” services for the park (id. at
2-3). Such services included a “collective decision” / “collaborative effort” to deter foot traffic on the grass lawn by erecting a rope barrier connected by a series of stakes around its outer perimeter (id. at
