Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs base their allegations of negligence on the claim that the defendant had constructive notice of the condition which caused the injured plaintiff to slip and fall in its supermarket. It is well settled that in order to establish a prima facie case of negligence in a slip and fall case, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant either created the condition which caused the plaintiff's fall, or had actual or constructive notice of it (see, Hollinger v. Chestnut Ridge Racquet Corp., 227 A.D.2d 380; Kraemer v. K-Mart Corp., 226 A.D.2d 590). To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent, and must exist for a sufficient length of time before the accident so as to permit the defendant's employees to discover and remedy it (see, Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837). We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to constructive notice. Any finding that the grapes upon which the injured plaintiff allegedly slipped had been on the floor for any appreciable period of time would be mere speculation (see, Rotunno v Pathmark, 220 A.D.2d 570; Bashaw v. Rite Aid, 207 A.D.2d 632; Anderson v. Klein's Foods, 139 A.D.2d 904, affd 73 N.Y.2d 835).
Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.