Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In order to prevail on their motion for summary judgment in this action involving a fall upon an allegedly defective stairway, the defendants were "`required to establish as a matter of law that they maintained the property in question in a reasonably safe condition and that they neither created the allegedly dangerous condition existing thereon nor had actual or constructive notice thereof" ( see Mokszki v Pratt, 13 AD3d 709, 710, quoting Richardson v Rotterdam Sq. Mall, 289 AD2d 679, 679; Hyman v Queens County Bancorp, 307 AD2d 984, 986, affd 3 NY3d 743). To give rise to constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and must exist for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit the defendant to discover and remedy it ( see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836). Only after the defendants have satisfied their threshold burden will the court examine the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851; Soto-Lopez v Board of Mgrs. of Crescent Tower Condominium, 44 AD3d 846).
Here, the defendants failed to submit evidence sufficient to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.