The trial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, was sufficient to permit the jury to rationally conclude, as it evidently did, that defendant, by failing to adequately salt and sand the path it had cleared along the sidewalk the day preceding plaintiff's accident, created or increased the ice hazard that caused plaintiff's harm ( see Figueroa v. Lazarus Burman Assocs., 269 A.D.2d 215; Glick v. City of New York, 139 A.D.2d 402; and see Genen v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 261 A.D.2d 211).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.