ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, the cross motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the defendants Joseph Caputo and Lucia Caputo is severed.
An owner or lessee is under no duty to pedestrians to remove ice and snow that naturally accumulates upon the sidewalk in front of his or her premises (see Booth v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 357, 358; Lakhan v. Singh, 269 A.D.2d 427). The failure to remove all of the ice and snow is not negligence (see Spicehandler v. City of New York, 303 N.Y. 946; Kennedy v. C C New Main St. Corp., 269 A.D.2d 499), and liability will not result unless it is shown that the property owner made the sidewalk more hazardous in attempting to remove the ice and snow (see Lakhan v. Singh, supra; Velez v. City of New York, 257 A.D.2d 570).
Here, the appellants presented evidence which established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324). In response, the plaintiff failed to raise any issues of fact as to whether the defendants caused or created the injury-causing ice patch "through incomplete snow removal efforts, apart from unsubstantiated hypotheses and suppositions by the plaintiffs' attorney, which are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment" (Penny v. Pembrook Mgt., 280 A.D.2d 590, 591; see Plona v. City of New York, 289 A.D.2d 215, 216).
PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, McGINITY and TOWNES, JJ., concur.