DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
An owner of property abutting a public sidewalk is under no duty to pedestrians to remove snow and ice that naturally accumulates upon the sidewalk in front of the premises unless a statute or ordinance specifically imposes tort liability for failing to do so ( see D'Ambrosio v. City of New York, 55 N.Y.2d 454; Negron v. G.R.A. Realty, 307 A.D.2d 282; Palmer v. City of New York, 287 A.D.2d 553). Where, as here, there is no such statute or ordinance, the failure to remove all of the snow from a storm will not result in liability unless it is shown that the property owner made the sidewalk more hazardous through negligent snow removal efforts ( see Negron v. G.R.A. Realty, supra; Palmer v. City of New York, supra). In opposition to the defendant property owner's prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to his claim that the defendant's negligent shoveling of the snow made the sidewalk more hazardous ( see Vergara v. City of New York, 304 A.D.2d 750; Muro v. Romano, 301 A.D.2d 582; Savage v. Shah, 297 A.D.2d 795; Alexis v. Lessey, 275 A.D.2d 754). Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment should have been granted.
KRAUSMAN, J.P., SCHMIDT, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.