| Bruzzo v County of Nassau |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03159 [50 AD3d 720] |
| April 8, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Annmarie Bruzzo et al., Appellants, v County of Nassau etal., Defendants, and 2824 Long Beach Road, LLC, et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] John P. Humphreys, Melville, N.Y. (Scott W. Driver of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited bytheir brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), datedJanuary 3, 2007, as granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendants 2824 Long BeachRoad, LLC, Cedarhurst Paper Corp., and PW3, Inc., doing business as Cedarhurst Paper, whichwas for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff Annmarie Bruzzo allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell on snow andice while walking from a parking lot to a sidewalk abutting property owned by the defendants2824 Long Beach Road, LLC, Cedarhurst Paper Corp., and PW3, Inc., doing business asCedarhurst Paper (hereinafter the respondents). She and her husband, asserting a derivative causeof action, commenced this action to recover damages arising from negligence. The respondentscross-moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as assertedagainst them. We affirm the Supreme Court's grant of such relief.
The owner or lessee of property abutting a public sidewalk is under no duty to remove iceand snow that naturally accumulates upon the sidewalk unless a statute or ordinance specificallyimposes tort liability for failing to do so (see Crudo v City of New York, 42 AD3d 479 [2007]; Booth vCity of New York , 272 AD2d 357, 358 [2000]; Blum v City of New York, 267AD2d 341 [1999]). In the absence of such a statute or ordinance, the owner or lessee can be heldliable only if he or she, or someone on his or [*2]her behalf,undertook snow and ice removal efforts which made the naturally-occurring conditions morehazardous (see Crudo v City of NewYork, 42 AD3d 479 [2007]; Klotz v City of New York, 9 AD3d 392 [2004]; Booth v City ofNew York, 272 AD2d 357 [2000]). Here, it is undisputed that no statute or ordinanceimposes tort liability upon the respondents for failing to clear ice and snow from the sidewalk.Further, in support of their motion, the respondents demonstrated, prima facie, that neither they,nor anyone acting on their behalf, made the condition of the sidewalk more hazardous throughnegligent or improper snow removal efforts (see Crudo v City of New York, 42 AD3d 479 [2007]; Klotz v City of New York, 9 AD3d392 [2004]; Booth v City of New York, 272 AD2d 357 [2000]). In opposition, theplaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the respondents were properly awardedsummary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Mastro, J.P.,Ritter, Carni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.