Opinion
April 5, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly slipped on a wet substance in the entrance of a supermarket operated by' the defendant. There was no evidence that the defendant either had actual notice of the wet condition of the floor prior to the plaintiff's accident, or that the alleged hazardous condition was visible, apparent, and existed for a sufficient length of time to constitute constructive notice ( see, Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836). Moreover, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the evidence was insufficient for a trier of fact to rationally infer that the defendant had actual notice of a recurring hazard such that it should be charged with constructive notice of each specific recurrence of the condition ( see, Mercer v. City of New York, 88 N.Y.2d 955; Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 967).
Finally, the plaintiff's contention that the defendant breached its duty of care by failing to follow its own policy of putting down mats in hazardous weather is without merit under the facts of this case ( see, Madrid v. City of New York, 53 A.D.2d 517, affd 42 N.Y.2d 1039; Pignatelli v. Gimbel Bros., 285 App. Div. 625, affd 309 N.Y. 901).
Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.