Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly fell from a staircase in the subcellar level of the defendant's building. In a premises liability case, the defendant owner moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of establishing that it did not create a defective condition or have actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it ( see Mejia v City of New York, 33 AD3d 675; Joachim v 1824 Church Ave., Inc., 12 AD3d 409).
Here, in response to the defendant's demonstration of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Robinson v Lupo, 261 AD2d 525), the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the contention of the plaintiffs expert, the Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-375 is not applicable to the subject staircase because it did not serve as a required exit from the building ( see Administrative Code of City of New York §§ 27-232, 27-375; Weiss v City of New York, 16 AD3d 680, 681-682; Walker v 127 W. 22nd St. Assoc., 281 AD2d 539).