There is no evidence that would permit an inference that the ice or wetness on which plaintiff slipped was created by defendant's employees or had been on the floor of defendant's crowded restaurant for a sufficient length of time to permit defendant's employees to discover and remedy it. It was incumbent on plaintiff to produce such evidence in view of defendant's bar manager's uncontradicted deposition testimony that on the night of the accident there were no complaints about ice or spills on the floor near where plaintiff fell and that he inspected the floor on a regular basis and had it cleaned as necessary. Absent such evidence, the complaint was properly dismissed (see, Garcia v. New York City Hous. Auth., 183 A.D.2d 619, 620; compare, Lorenzo v. Plitt Theatres, 267 A.D.2d 54, 699 N.Y.S.2d 388).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.