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 (see Schiano v Mijul, Inc., 79 AD3d 726; Walsh v Super Value, Inc., 76 AD3d 371; Gambino v City of New York, 60 AD3d 627). “To meet its initial burden on the issue of . . . constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected [*2]relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” (Birnbaum v New York Racing Assn., Inc., 57 AD3d 598, 598-599; see Mei Xiao Guo v Quong Big Realty Corp., 81 AD3d 610). Additionally, a defendant who has actual knowledge of an ongoing and recurring dangerous condition may be charged with constructive notice of each specific reoccurrence of the condition (see Milano v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 73 AD3d 1141; Kohout v Molloy Coll., 61 AD3d 640; Brown v Linden Plaza Hous. Co., Inc., 36 AD3d 742; Roussos v Ciccotto, 15 AD3d 641). A general awareness of a condition, however, is insufficient to constitute constructive notice of the specific condition that caused the plaintiff to fall (see Kostic v Ascent Media Group, LLC, 79 AD3d 818; Mauge v Barrow St. Ale House, 70 AD3d 1016; Panetta v Phoenix Beverages, Inc., 29 AD3d 659). A defendant cannot satisfy its initial burden as the movant merely by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff’s case (see McPhaul v Mutual of Am. Life Ins. Co., 81 AD3d 609; Davranov v 470 Realty Assoc., LLC, 79 AD3d 697; Edwards v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 71 AD3d 721).