The motion was properly granted since plaintiffs failed to submit competent evidence that defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazard, i.e., creamy perfume on the floor of its cosmetics department, prior to plaintiff's alleged slip and fall. Alleged statements by unidentified employees of defendant purportedly made to plaintiff, that they had seen the foreign substance on the floor prior to the incident and had asked someone to clean it up, were not competent evidence to defeat defendant's summary judgment motion since, inter alia, the alleged statements were not shown to have been made within the scope of the employees' authority (see, Loschiavo v. Port Auth. of New York New Jersey, 58 N.Y.2d 1040, 1041; Cassanova v. Gen. Cinema Corp., 237 A.D.2d 155).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.