CHAPMAN v. CITY OF NEW YORK

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

A municipality is not liable in negligence for injuries sustained by a pedestrian who slips and falls on an icy and snow-covered sidewalk unless a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, subsequent to the cessation of the storm, for taking protective measures (see, Robles v. City of New York, 255 A.D.2d 305 ; Urena v. New York City Tr. Auth., 248 A.D.2d 377 ; Newsome v. Cservak, 130 A.D.2d 637 ; Valentine v. City of New York, 86 A.D.2d 381, 384, affd 57 N.Y.2d 932 ).

After the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, no proof was offered by the injured plaintiff to support the allegation that his fall was caused by an accumulation of "old" snow and ice from a storm which occurred three to four days before the date of his fall, as opposed to the precipitation from the storm in progress at the time of his accident. The injured plaintiff's assertion that the hazardous condition was a result of "old" snow and ice is nothing more than mere conjecture and speculation (see, Simmons v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 N.Y.2d 972 ; Bernstein v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 1020 ; Urena v. New York City Tr. Auth., supra; Bertman v. Board of Mgrs. of Omni Ct. Condominium I, 233 A.D.2d 283 ; Pohl v. Sternberg, 259 A.D.2d 742 ; Baum v. Knoll Farm, 259 A.D.2d 456 ; Grillo v. New York City Tr. Auth., 214 A.D.2d 648 ). Accordingly, summary judgment is granted to the City.

SULLIVAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, McGINITY, and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.