Opinion
June 22, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the defendants' motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
It is well settled that a plaintiff in a slip and fall case must establish that the defendant either created the defective condition which caused the plaintiffs fall 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). Here, the evidence submitted by the defendants clearly established that they neither created nor had actual notice of the condition which caused the plaintiff's fall. In addition, contrary to the Supreme Court's conclusion, the evidence does not create a triable issue of fact that the defendants had constructive notice of the condition. Thus, the defendants' motion for summary judgment should have been granted.
Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.