ARSLAN v. Stop–N–Shop Supermarket, respondent. (2010)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated September 23, 2009, which, in effect, granted the renewed motion of the defendant Stop–N–Shop Supermarket for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 The Supreme Court properly, in effect, granted the renewed motion of the defendant Stop–N–Shop Supermarket (hereinafter the defendant) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.   The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the affidavit of an employee charged with regularly inspecting the store in which the plaintiff tripped and fell, which demonstrated that the defendant did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it (see Popovec v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 26 A.D.3d 321, 808 N.Y.S.2d 779;  Ganci v. National Wholesale Liquidators of Farmingdale, Inc., 20 A.D.3d 551, 799 N.Y.S.2d 261;  Meyer v. Pathmark Stores, 290 A.D.2d 423, 736 N.Y.S.2d 83).   The plaintiff's contention, in opposition, that the substance on the aisle floor must have been present for 20 to 30 minutes was, under the circumstances of this case, speculative and conclusory and, thus, insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had constructive notice of the substance (see Steisel v. Golden Reef Diner, 67 A.D.3d 670, 671, 888 N.Y.S.2d 150;  Gonforone v. Southland Corp., 300 A.D.2d 443, 752 N.Y.S.2d 93;  Dixon v. Lichtman, 295 A.D.2d 308, 309, 742 N.Y.S.2d 906;  Marukos v. Waldbaums, Inc., 267 A.D.2d 434, 699 N.Y.S.2d 736;  Cuddy v. Waldbaum, Inc., 230 A.D.2d 703, 646 N.Y.S.2d 51;  Pirillo v. Longwood Assoc., 179 A.D.2d 744, 579 N.Y.S.2d 120).

The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.