Opinion
March 1, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
Where the defendant has established its entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law in a slip and fall case involving debris on a supermarket floor, "the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant either created the allegedly dangerous condition [that caused the accident] or had actual or constructive notice of it" ( Panzella v. Shop Rite Supermarkets, 238 A.D.2d 490; see also, Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 967; Wauters v. Shop Rite, 244 A.D.2d 404; Gass v. Inserra Supermarkets, 243 A.D.2d 609; Palestrini v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 208 A.D.2d 818; Kaufman v. Man-Dell Food Stores, 203 A.D.2d 532). Moreover, "[t]o 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" ( Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837; Negri v. Stop Shop, 65 N.Y.2d 625; Wauters v. Shop Rite, supra; Katsons v. Waldbaum, Inc., 241 A.D.2d 511, 512; Markowitz v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 237 A.D.2d 493, 494).
Here, the plaintiffs submissions failed to establish the existence of material issues of fact with respect to her claim that the substance on the floor of the defendant's supermarket existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident in order to have permitted the defendant's employees to discover and remove it ( see, Palestrini v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., supra; Wauters v. Shop Rite, supra; Markowitz v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., supra).
Miller, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.