| Knack v Red Lobster 286, N & D Rests., Inc. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05801 [98 AD3d 473] |
| August 1, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Shirley N. Knack, Appellant, v Red Lobster 286, N and DRestaurants, Inc., et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Steven F. Goldstein, LLP, Carle Place, N.Y., for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Rockland County (Alfieri, J.), dated August 10, 2011, which granted thedefendants' 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 burdenof making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual orconstructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it" (Sloane v Costco Wholesale Corp., 49AD3d 522, 523 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Kramer v SBR & C, 62 AD3d667, 669 [2009]). A defendant has constructive notice of a defect when the defect is visibleand apparent, and existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident that it could havebeen discovered and corrected (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67NY2d 836, 837-838 [1986]).
Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of lawby submitting evidence that they neither created the condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff'saccident, nor had actual or constructive notice of the condition (see Pollina v Oakland's Rest., Inc., 95AD3d 1190 [2012]; Cusack v PeterLuger, Inc., 77 AD3d 785, 786 [2010]; Steisel v Golden Reef Diner, 67 AD3d 670, 671 [2009]; DeLeon v Westhab, Inc., 60 AD3d888 [2009]; Malenda v Great Atl. &Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 50 AD3d 972, 972-973 [2008]; Sloane v Costco WholesaleCorp., 49 AD3d at 523; Pomerantzv Culinary Inst. of Am., 2 AD3d 821 [2003]; Gloria v MGM Emerald Enters.,298 AD2d 355 [2002]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (seeCusack v Peter Luger, Inc., 77 AD3d at 786; Hartley v Waldbaum, Inc., 69 AD3d 902, 903 [2010]).Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.P., Eng, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.