ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
On March 18, 1993, the plaintiff Kevin Telford (hereinafter the plaintiff) allegedly sustained personal injuries when he slipped and fell on snow and ice in his employer's parking lot. At the time of the plaintiff's accident, a contract was allegedly in effect between his employer, New York Telephone (hereinafter NYNEX), and the defendant Laro Maintenance Corporation (hereinafter Laro) to provide certain services, including general janitorial, landscaping, and snow removal duties.
At trial, the plaintiffs failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission into evidence of the purported maintenance contract between Laro and NYNEX. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case, counsel for Laro moved to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case. The Supreme Court granted Laro's motion and dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, they failed to establish the existence of a comprehensive and exclusive property maintenance obligation intended to displace the duty of NYNEX, as landowner, to maintain the property in a safe condition (see, Palka v. Servicemaster Mgt. Servs. Corp., 83 N.Y.2d 579; Murphy v. M.B. Real Estate Dev. Corp., 280 A.D.2d 457; Donahue v. Petracca Co., 277 A.D.2d 346; Galetti v. Coyne Textile Serv., 271 A.D.2d 406; Sapone v. Commercial Bldg. Maintenance Corp., 262 A.D.2d 393). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted Laro's motion.
In addition, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs a continuance to produce a witness from NYNEX (see, Reo v. Klarman, 259 A.D.2d 477; Herbert v. Edwards Super Food Stores-Finast Supermarkets, 253 A.D.2d 789; cf., Evangelinos v. Reifschneider, 241 A.D.2d 508). The plaintiffs failed to exercise due diligence in securing the witness's appearance, as they had ample time and opportunity to do so (see, Herbert v. Edwards Super Food Stores-Finast Supermarkets, supra; Reo v. Klarman, supra, at 478).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.