| Sfakianos v Big Six Towers, Inc. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09761 [46 AD3d 665] |
| December 11, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| George Sfakianos et al., Appellants, v Big Six Towers,Inc., Respondent. |
—[*1] Lawrence, Worden, Rainis & Bard, P.C., Melville, N.Y. (Roger B. Lawrence and Jeremy B.Honig of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) anorder of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), dated October 26, 2006, which grantedthe defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) from an order ofthe same court dated February 20, 2007.
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated February 20, 2007 is dismissed as abandoned(see 22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated October 26, 2006 is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.
A property owner will not be held liable for accidents occurring on its property as a result ofthe accumulation of snow and/or ice until a reasonable period of time has passed, following thecessation of the storm, within which the owner has the opportunity to ameliorate the hazardscaused by the storm (see Smith v Leslie, 270 AD2d 333, 334 [2000]; Taylor v NewYork City Tr. Auth., 266 AD2d 384 [1999]; Mangieri v Prime Hospitality Corp., 251AD2d 632, 633 [1998]).[*2]
The climatological records submitted by the defendantshould have been authenticated (see CPLR 4528, 4540 [a]). However, under the facts ofthis case, accepting as true the plaintiffs' assertions with respect to when the snowstorm ceasedand when the accident occurred, the defendant established its prima facie showing of entitlementto judgment as a matter of law (see DeMasi v Radbro Realty, 261 AD2d 354 [1999];Whitt v St. John's Episcopal Hosp., 258 AD2d 648, 648-649 [1999]). In opposition, theplaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see DeVito v Harrison House Assoc., 41 AD3d 420, 421 [2007]; Zimmer v Kimco Realty Corp., 6AD3d 528, 529 [2004]; Dowden v Long Is. R.R., 305 AD2d 631 [2003];Mangieri v Prime Hospitality Corp., 251 AD2d at 633).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d320 [1986]). Schmidt, J.P., Rivera, Florio and Balkin, JJ., concur.