Opinion
Submitted April 13, 2000.
May 22, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated June 8, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Kral, Clerkin, Redmond, Ryan, Perry Girvan, Mineola, N Y (James V. Derenze of counsel), for appellant.
Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, ANITA R. FLORIO, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The plaintiff brought the instant action to recover damages for personal injuries which he allegedly suffered when he slipped and fell on some unidentified liquid in the defendant's supermarket. He alleged that the defendant had actual and/or constructive notice of the alleged condition. "To recover damages in a slip and fall case involving debris on a supermarket floor, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant either created the condition that caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of the condition" (Marukos v. Waldbaum's, Inc., ___ A.D.2d ___ [2d Dept., Dec. 27, 1999]; see, Rotunno v. Pathmark, 220 A.D.2d 570; Bykofsky v. Waldbaum's Supermarkets, Inc., 210 A.D.2d 280). Contrary to the court's determination, the defendant made out a prima facie case that it was entitled to summary judgment by establishing its lack of notice of the condition (see, Sanchez-Alvarado v. Mariott Health Care Serv., ___ A.D.2d ___ [2d Dept., Mar. 6, 2000]; Goldman v. Waldbaum, Inc., 248 A.D.2d 436; Padilla v. White Plains City School Dist., ___ A.D.2d ___ [2d Dept., Nov. 22, 1999]). The plaintiff's evidence in opposition to the motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the condition.
S. MILLER, J.P., FRIEDMANN, FLORIO and SMITH, JJ., concur.