Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On a summary judgment motion, the defendant in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of the condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it ( see Marino v. Stop Shop Supermarket Co., 21 AD3d 531; Britto v. Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 21 AD3d 436; Joachim v. 1824 Church Ave., Inc., 12 AD3d 409). "Only after the moving defendant has satisfied this threshold burden will the court examine the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition" ( Joachim v. 1824 Church Ave., Inc., supra at 410).

Here, the defendants, the owners and operators of a bowling alley, presented sufficient evidence to sustain their initial burden ( see Overton v. Leisure Time Recreation, 280 AD2d 655). However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants' employees caused the approach area to be slippery by negligently operating an oiling machine used to oil the lanes ( see Kappes v. Cohoes Bowling Arena, 2 AD3d 1034; Overton v. Leisure Time Recreation, supra). Moreover, the plaintiff also raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants had notice of the slippery condition in the approach area ( cf. Rocco v. St. Matthew's R.C. Church, 265 AD2d 472). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion.

The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit ( see Kappes v. Cohoes Bowling Arena, supra).