GUTTIEREZ v. LENOX HILL NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE

Inasmuch as the evidence of record demonstrates that the complained-of hazard upon defendant's premises, a wet locker room floor, was not visible and apparent, much less visible and apparent for a sufficient period to permit its discovery and remediation, the complaint was properly dismissed ( see Gordon v. Am. Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836; Uhlich v. Canada Dry Bottling Co. of New York, 305 A.D.2d 107). Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the deposition testimony of defendant's witness to the effect that she occasionally observed club members track water into the locker room from the pool or shower areas, was insufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether the alleged hazard was an instance of an ongoing and recurrent condition of which defendant should have been aware ( see Segretti v. Shorenstein Co. E., L.P., 256 A.D.2d 234; Peso v. Am. Leisure Facilites Mgt. Corp., 277 A.D.2d 48).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.