DECISION ORDER ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with costs, as the order was superseded by an order of the same court, entered December 4, 1998, made upon reargument (see, Schneider v. Analisa Salon Ltd., 270 A.D.2d 245 [Appellate Division Docket No. 1999-00383, decided herewith]). RITTER, J.P., SANTUCCI, THOMPSON, and McGINITY, JJ., concur.

Defendants were not required to cover the floors with mats ( see Kovelsky v City University of New York, 221 AD2d 234, 234) or to constantly respond to rainwater being tracked in from the outside ( see Keum Choi v Olympia York Water Street Co., 278 AD2d 106, 107). Consequently, Mormile's submissions do not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Initial or defendants created a dangerous condition by the placement and utilization of the floor mats ( see Dini v Imperial Workwear Services, Inc., 300 AD2d 279; Schneider v Analisa Salon Ltd., 270 Ad2d 245 [2000]).