Defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Defendant demonstrated that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition. The building's supervisor of caretakers stated that the janitorial schedule for the building included that the subject stairs be cleaned in the hour before plaintiff fell ( see Love v New York City Hous. Auth., 82 AD3d 588; Raghu v New York City Hous. Auth., 72 AD3d 480, 481-482).
Plaintiffs opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Evidence of a general awareness of debris and spills in the stairway does not require a finding that defendant is deemed to have notice of the condition that caused plaintiff to fall ( see Piaequadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967, 969; DeJesus v New York City Hous. Auth., 53 AD3d 410, 411).