In Budd v. Gotham House Owners Corp., 17 A.D.3d 122, 793 N.Y.S.2d 340 (1st Dept. 2005), plaintiff slipped and fell on a carpet in the lobby of her apartment building which she claimed was frequently wrinkled and that its edges were often curled and raised. Plaintiff testified she had left her building at 7:30 p.m. and saw no wrinkles in the carpet. When she returned at 9:45 p.m., she did not notice that the carpet was bunched or wrinkled. She testified that she fell on the carpet but it was not until after she fell that she saw a raised wrinkle in the rug. The building superintendent submitted an affidavit stating that he had observed the condition of the rug as of 8:30 P.M. on the night of the incident, and did not see any wrinkles. The First Department held that defendants were entitled to summary judgment based on plaintiff's testimony that saw no wrinkles in the carpet at 7:30 p.m and the superintendent's statement that he did not observe any wrinkles in the carpet at 8:30 p.m. The Court reasoned that nothing submitted in opposition to the motion demonstrated that a hazardous condition was "visible and apparent and existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant's employees to discover and remedy it".