MARTINEZ v. CITY OF YONKERS

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case must demonstrate that the defendant either created the dangerous condition which caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of that condition and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time (see Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836; Blake v. City of Albany, 48 N.Y.2d 875). "To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit [the defendant] to discover it and remedy it" (Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, supra at 837).

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendant City of Yonkers for summary judgment. After the City made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the City had constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition which the plaintiff contends precipitated her fall (see Knightner v. Custom Window Door Prods., 289 A.D.2d 455; Hanley v. Affronti, 278 A.D.2d 868; Fundaro v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 516; see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp, 68 N.Y.2d 320).

SANTUCCI, J.P., SMITH, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.