KARALIC v. CITY OF NEW YORK

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants, property owners, failed to establish as a matter of law that their superintendent's snow removal activities did not cause, create, or otherwise increase the allegedly hazardous icy condition which resulted in the plaintiff Milivoje Karalic's injuries ( see Mahoney v. Affrunti, 297 A.D.2d 717; Giamboi v. Manor House Owners Corp., 277 A.D.2d 201, 202; Baillet v. Auerbach, 277 A.D.2d 335). Since the appellants failed to meet their burden, it is not necessary to consider whether the papers in opposition to the motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Chaplin v. Taylor, 273 A.D.2d 188).

FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.