The action was properly dismissed in view of the meteorological evidence showing that within the six-hour period before and four-hour period after plaintiff's fall, there was a snowfall accumulation of about half an inch, including precipitation at the time of the fall, sub-freezing temperatures, and winds gusting to 24 mph, and in the absence of any evidence showing that any of the defendants had undertaken any snow removal efforts in connection with that snowfall before plaintiff's fall ( see, Valentine v. City of New York, 57 N.Y.2d 932, affg 86 A.D.2d 381; Keane v. City of New York, 208 A.D.2d 457). We reject plaintiff's characterization of the meteorological evidence as showing only "trace amounts" of snow that could not have caused him to fall, and it is pure speculation for him to argue that he fell on "old" snow negligently removed, rather than on a fresh accumulation ( see, Simmons v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 N.Y.2d 972).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Nardelli, Williams and Rubin, JJ.