| Quintanilla v John Mauro's Lawn Serv., Inc. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09239 [79 AD3d 838] |
| December 14, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Jeanette Quintanilla et al., Appellants, v John Mauro's LawnService, Inc., Respondent. |
—[*1] Goldberg Segalla, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Jesse D. Rutter of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of theSupreme Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), dated September 14, 2009, which granted thedefendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motionfor summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant satisfied its prima facie burden ofestablishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Foster v Herbert Slepoy Corp., 76 AD3d 210, 214 [2010]). Inopposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant created orexacerbated the icy condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff Jeanette Quintanilla to fall (seeEspinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 141-142 [2002]; Arriola v A&W Landscaping of Long Is., 68AD3d 484, 484-485 [2009]; Peters vUnited Ref. Co. of Pa., 57 AD3d 1512, 1512-1513 [2008]; cf. Elsey v Clark Trading Corp., 57 AD3d1330 [2008]; Keese v Imperial GardensAssoc., LLC, 36 AD3d 666, 667-668 [2007]). By merely plowing the snow, days beforeJeanette Quintanilla's fall, in accordance with the defendant's contract with the nonparty State of NewYork, the defendant cannot be said to have created or exacerbated a dangerous condition (seeEspinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d at 142; Arriola v A&W Landscaping of LongIs., 68 AD3d at 485). Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.