DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment, as the defendant met its burden of establishing that it neither created the dangerous condition which allegedly caused the accident nor had a reasonable time within which to discover and remedy the condition (see, Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836; Melendez v. Melmarkets, Inc., 276 A.D.2d 535; [2d Dept., Oct. 10, 2000]; Rivest v. Pizza Hut of Am., 264 A.D.2d 388; Bradish v. Tank Tech Corp., 216 A.D.2d 505).
The plaintiffs failed to adduce sufficient evidence in admissible form that statements allegedly made by the defendant's employees were made with the authority to speak for the defendant or that the statements could properly be used to establish notice (see, Melendez v. Melmarkets, Inc., supra; Rivest v. Pizza Hut of Am., supra; Williams v. Waldbaums Supermarkets, 236 A.D.2d 605). Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment should have been granted.