| Bisontt v Rockaway One Co., LLC |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00638 [47 AD3d 862] |
| January 29, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Everly Bisontt, Appellant, v Rockaway One Company,LLC, et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company, New York, N.Y. (Thomas D. Hughes,Richard C. Rubinstein, and David D. Hess of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated September 26, 2006, which granted thedefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff alleges that on December 6, 2002 he slipped and fell on snow and ice on asidewalk abutting a building in Queens County. At that time, the building was owned by thedefendant Rockaway One Company, LLC, and managed by the defendant Oceanview Associates,LLC.
A property owner is under no duty to pedestrians to remove snow and ice that naturallyaccumulates upon the sidewalk in front of the premises unless a statute or ordinance specificallyimposes tort liability for failing to do so (see D'Ambrosio v City of New York, 55 NY2d454 [1982]; Crudo v City of NewYork, 42 AD3d 479 [2007]; Reynolds v Gendron, 28 AD3d 735 [2006]; Wu Zhou Wu v Korea Shuttle ExpressCorp., 23 AD3d 376 [2005]). No such statute was in place in New York City prior toSeptember 14, 2003, the effective date of a revision to the Administrative Code of the City ofNew York, which imposed tort liability on certain abutting landowners for the negligent failureto remove snow and ice (see [*2]Administrative Code ofCity of New York § 7-210, as added by Local Law No. 49 [2003] of City of New York§ 1; Wu Zhou Wu v KoreaShuttle Express Corp., 23 AD3d 376 [2005]; Klotz v City of New York, 9 AD3d 392 [2004]). Since the subjectaccident occurred before September 14, 2003, the code does not apply, and the defendants canonly be held liable if they undertook snow removal efforts which made the naturally-occurringconditions more hazardous (seeReynolds v Gendron, 28 AD3d 735 [2006]; Friedman v Stauber, 18 AD3d 606 [2005]).
Here the defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw by demonstrating that they did not render the condition of the abutting sidewalk morehazardous through negligent snow removal (see Reynolds v Gendron, 28 AD3d 735 [2006]; Wu Zhou Wu v Korea Shuttle ExpressCorp., 23 AD3d 376 [2005]; Schor v City of New York, 304 AD2d 550 [2003];Feiler v Greystone Bldg. Co., 302 AD2d 221 [2003]). In opposition thereto, the plaintifffailed to raise a triable issue of fact (seeCrudo v City of New York, 42 AD3d 479 [2007]; Krichevskaya v City of New York, 30 AD3d 471 [2006]).Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Mastro,J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Dickerson, JJ., concur.