Opinion
Submitted May 31, 2000.
September 18, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries , the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated July 23, 1999, as, upon renewal, adhered to its prior determination in an order dated March 30, 1999, granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint .
Barr Rosenbaum, LLP, Spring Valley, N.Y. (Craig A. Post of counsel), for appellant.
Fixler Associates, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Frank Gulino of counsel), for respondents.
Before: GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., FRED T. SANTUCCI, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff alleged that she was injured when she slipped and fell on a wet floor just inside the defendants' premises. To establish a prima facie case of negligence in a slip and fall case, the plaintiff is required to present proof that the defendants created, or had actual or constructive notice of, the defective condition which allegedly caused her to fall (see, Caprano v. Staten Is. Univ . Hosp., 245 A.D.2d 256; Katsoris v. Waldbaum, Inc., 241 A.D.2d 511; Kraemer v. K-Mart Corp., 226 A.D.2d 590; see also, Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 967). To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit a defendant to discover and remedy it (see, Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837). Here, the defendants met their initial burden of establishing that they neither created nor were they aware of the alleged dangerous condition.
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to constructive notice. Any finding that the water had been on the floor for a sufficient length of time to permit the defendants' employees to discover and remedy the condition would be based on mere speculation (see, Paciello v. May Dept. Stores Co., 263 A.D.2d 533; Graubart v. Laro Maintenance, 244 A.D.2d 457; see also, Smith v. May Dept. Store Co., 270 A.D.2d 870). Moreover, proof of a defendant's awareness of a general condition is not sufficient to establish constructive notice of the particular condition which caused the plaintiff to fall (see, Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp. , supra; Paciello v. May Dept. Stores Co., supra).