DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The injured plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on water and pieces of lettuce in the produce aisle of the defendant's supermarket. The defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not create the condition on which the injured plaintiff slipped, nor did it have actual or constructive notice thereof ( see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs' reliance on the store manager's statement indicating a prior awareness of the condition was inadmissible in the absence of proof of his authority to speak for his employer, the defendant ( see Loschiavo v. Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J., 58 N.Y.2d 1040, 1041; Cohn v. Mayfair Supermarkets, 305 A.D.2d 528, 529). Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the presence of a recurring dangerous condition ( see Gloria v. MGM Emerald Enters., 298 A.D.2d 355, 356; Halperin v. Waldbaum's Supermarket, 236 A.D.2d 514, 515).
The plaintiffs' remaining contention that the condition was caused by the sprayers in the vegetable department is raised for the first time on appeal and is not properly before the court ( see Russell v. BB Indus., 309 A.D.2d 914, 915).
PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, LUCIANO and CRANE, JJ., concur.