Opinion
No. 107184/08.
March 1, 2011.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered January 12, 2010, which, in action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff slipped and fell on an accumulation of snow and ice on a cracked and uneven portion of the sidewalk in front of defendants' building, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Mallilo Grossman, Flushing (Francesco Pomara, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.
Gannon, Lawrence Rosenfarb, New York (Jason B. Rosenfarb of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Renwick, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Dismissal of the complaint was warranted where plaintiffs fall occurred while a storm was in progress ( see Solazzo v New York City Tr. Auth., 21 AD3d 735, aff'd 6 NY3d 734). The climatological records of the day of plaintiffs accident showed a snowfall that resulted in a total accumulation of 2.8 inches ( see Abaya v City of New York, 257 AD2d 446). Even crediting plaintiffs testimony that the snow had completely stopped 30 to 45 minutes before her fall, such a short lapse of time is insufficient to impart liability on defendants ( see Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth., 52 AD3d 299; Nayman v New York City Tr. Auth., 25 AD3d 376), and plaintiff's contention that her fall was the result of improper snow removal is speculative ( see Joseph v Pitkin Carpet, Inc., 44 AD3d 462, 464).
Defendants also established, through the affidavit of their expert, that the cracked condition of the sidewalk was too trivial to be actionable ( see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976). Plaintiffs affidavit in opposition is insufficient to defeat the motion, as it contradicts her deposition testimony ( see Disla v City of New York, 65 AD3d 949).