| Bi Chan Lin v Po Ying Yam |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03857 [62 AD3d 740] |
| May 12, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Bi Chan Lin, Appellant, v Po Ying Yam et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Fishman & Tynan, Merrick, N.Y. (John Fishman of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated September 7, 2007, which granted thedefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on ice on a sidewalk abutting the defendants'property. The defendants and their children lived in the premises. Thus, they are exempt fromliability imposed pursuant to New York City Administrative Code § 7-210 (b) for failureto remove snow and ice from the sidewalk.
An owner of property abutting a public sidewalk is under no duty to pedestrians to removesnow and ice that naturally accumulates on the sidewalk unless a statute or ordinance specificallyimposes tort liability for failing to do so (see Smalley v Bemben, 12 NY3d 751 [2009]; Roark v Hunting,24 NY2d 470, 475 [1969]; Robles vCity of New York, 56 AD3d 647 [2008]; Bruzzo v County of Nassau, 50 AD3d 720 [2008]; Archer vCity of New York, 300 AD2d 518 [2002]). In the absence of such a statute or ordinance, theowner can be held liable only if he or she, or someone on his or her behalf, undertook snow andice removal efforts which made the naturally-occurring conditions more hazardous (see Bruzzo v County of Nassau, 50AD3d 720 [2008]; Archer v City of New York, 300 AD2d 518 [2002]).[*2]
In response to the defendants' demonstration ofentitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as towhether the defendants made the condition more hazardous than if they had done nothing.Evidence that melting snow on the defendants' property on the sides of the defendants' drivewaymay have run off onto the sidewalk does not indicate that the defendants made the naturallyoccurring conditions more hazardous (see Roark v Hunting, 24 NY2d 470, 475 [1969];O'Connor v Consolidated Edison Co. ofN.Y., Inc., 55 AD3d 356 [2008]; Rader v Walton, 21 AD3d 1409 [2005]; Blum v City of NewYork, 267 AD2d 341 [1999]).
Accordingly, the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint wasproperly granted. Fisher, J.P., Dillon, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur. [See 2007 NYSlip Op 32896(U).]