REINALDO E. RIVERA
Henderson & Brennan, White Plains, N.Y. (John T. Brennan of counsel), for appellant. Steven F. Goldstein, LLP, Carle Place, N.Y., for respondents.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RANDALL T. ENG, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Alfieri, J.), dated August 10, 2011, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
“A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it” ( Sloane v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 49 A.D.3d 522, 523, 855 N.Y.S.2d 155 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Kramer v. SBR & C., 62 A.D.3d 667, 669, 879 N.Y.S.2d 158). A defendant has constructive notice of a defect when the defect is visible and apparent, and existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident that it could have been discovered and corrected ( see Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837–838, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774).
Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that they neither created the condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff's accident, nor had actual or constructive notice of the condition ( see Pollina v. Oakland's Rest., Inc., 95 A.D.3d 1190, 945 N.Y.S.2d 134;Cusack v. Peter Luger, Inc., 77 A.D.3d 785, 786, 909 N.Y.S.2d 532;Steisel v. Golden Reef Diner, 67 A.D.3d 670, 671, 888 N.Y.S.2d 150;DeLeon v. Westhab, Inc., 60 A.D.3d 888, 875 N.Y.S.2d 589;Malenda v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 50 A.D.3d 972, 972–973, 855 N.Y.S.2d 683;Sloane v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 49 A.D.3d at 523, 855 N.Y.S.2d 155;Pomerantz v. Culinary Inst. of Am., 2 A.D.3d 821, 770 N.Y.S.2d 424;Gloria v. MGM Emerald Enters., 298 A.D.2d 355, 751 N.Y.S.2d 213). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Cusack v. Peter Luger, Inc., 77 A.D.3d at 786, 909 N.Y.S.2d 532;Hartley v. Waldbaum, Inc., 69 A.D.3d 902, 903, 893 N.Y.S.2d 272). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.