The action was properly dismissed in view of the meteorological evidence showing that the precipitation ended at about the time plaintiff slipped and fell on the sidewalk, and in absence of any evidence showing that any of defendants had undertaken to remove the newly deposited snow and/or ice (see, Abaya v. City of New York, 257 A.D.2d 446). Plaintiff's speculation that defendants' employees may have shoveled snow or ice was insufficient to create a question of fact warranting denial of defendants' motions for summary judgment (cf., Jiuz v. The City of New York, 244 A.D.2d 298).
The denial of plaintiff's cross motion was proper given plaintiff's delay in seeking leave to amend and the evident absence of any basis for plaintiff to hold New Life Cleaning Contractors liable (see, Whalen v. 50 Sutton Place S. Owners, Inc., 276 A.D.2d 356, 714 N.Y.S.2d 269, 271).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.