ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
To establish a prima facie case of negligence in a slip and fall case, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant created the condition that caused the accident, or that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition (see Rabadi v. Atlantic Pac. Tea Co., 268 A.D.2d 418; Rotunno v. Pathmark, 220 A.D.2d 570; Bykofsky v. Waldbaum's Supermarkets, 210 A.D.2d 280). To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit a defendant's employees to discover and remedy it (see Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837). The proponent of a summary judgment motion to dismiss the complaint based upon a lack of notice is required to make a prima facie showing affirmatively establishing the absence of notice as a matter of law (see Goldman v. Waldbaum, 248 A.D.2d 436).
The defendants met their burden (see Rojas v. Supermarkets General Corp., 238 A.D.2d 393; Fox v. Kamel Corp., 271 A.D.2d 485). The plaintiff submitted no proof, only speculation, that the hazard upon which she allegedly slipped and fell remained on the floor for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendants' employees to discover and remedy it (see Anderson v. Klein's Foods, 139 A.D.2d 904, affd 73 N.Y.2d 835; Bachrach v. Waldbaum, Inc., 261 A.D.2d 426). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
S. MILLER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.