Whether the dry slick spot that allegedly caused plaintiff to slip and fall existed for a sufficient length of time to permit defendants' employees to remedy the defect (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837; Shildkrout v. Board of Educ., 173 A.D.2d 603, 604, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 858), and whether such condition was visible or apparent, are for the trier of fact (see, e.g., Zuppardo v. State of New York, 186 A.D.2d 561, 562). The deposition testimony of defendants' doorman/porter sufficed to raise a question of fact as to defendants' creation of the dangerous condition. As the IAS Court pointed out, the allegation of a spill claims more than that the floor was merely "slippery by reason of its smoothness or polish" (cf., Pizzi v. Bradlee's Div., 172 A.D.2d 504, 505-506).
Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.