Opinion
June 22, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.)
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that a plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case must establish that the defendant either created the defective condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent, and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant's employees to discover and remedy it (see, Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836; Nedd v. Associated Hosp. Servs., 236 A.D.2d 455; Rotunno v. Pathmark, 220 A.D.2d 570). We agree with the Supreme Court that there was no evidence presented to the jury from which it could infer that the defendant either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law.
Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.