Opinion
November 21, 2000.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about July 29, 1999, which granted defendants' motion and cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against all defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Brian J. Isaac, for plaintiff-appellant.
Eugene Guarneri, Martin J. Moskowitz, Ira J. Gold, Christopher Simone, for defendants-respondents.
Before: Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Saxe, Buckley, Friedman, JJ.
Defendants have established their entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating a lack of any material issue of fact with regard to the issue of creation or notice of the alleged defect (Strowman v. Great Atl. Pac. Tea Company, Inc., 252 A.D.2d 384, 385). Only moments before plaintiff's slip and fall, plaintiff and her co-worker had walked over the very area where she fell and saw nothing on the floor. Neither they nor anyone else had seen any hazardous condition prior to the accident. Thus, defendants established a lack of any constructive notice of a dangerous condition (see, Pollio v. Nelson Cleaning Co., 269 A.D.2d 512). Plaintiff's own affidavit in opposition to defendants' motion and cross motions was insufficient to create a triable issue of fact as it was in contradiction to her deposition testimony and clearly tailored to create an issue of fact (Phillips v. Bronx Lebanon Hosp., 268 A.D.2d 318, 320).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.