Acar v. Ecclesiastical Assistance Corp.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered September 24, 2013, which granted defendant Ecclesiastical Assistance Corporation’s (defendant) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The affidavit of plaintiffs expert meteorologist was not sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the ice upon which plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell was a result of melting and refreezing of runoff created by defendant’s snow-clearing activities. As Supreme Court found, the meteorologist’s opinion offered by plaintiff was speculative. Plaintiffs expert did not refute the testimony of defendant’s maintenance *465 supervisor that, shortly before plaintiffs fall, he had inspected the subject area and observed that it was free of ice. In any event, even if the snow removal efforts were incomplete, they did not exacerbate any hazardous condition (see Joseph v Pitkin Carpet, Inc., 44 AD3d 462 [1st Dept 2007]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Andrias, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.