Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
A party may be held liable for a hazardous condition created on its premises as the result of the accumulation of snow or ice during a storm upon a showing that it had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and that a reasonably sufficient time had lapsed since the cessation of the storm to take protective measures (see, Urena v. New York City Tr. Auth., 248 A.D.2d 377; see also, 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). The plaintiff's allegation that the respondents had constructive notice of the ice patch upon which he allegedly fell or that there was a reasonably ample amount of time to remedy the situation is based only upon speculation. Accordingly, the court properly granted summary judgment to the respondents (see, Simmons v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 84 N.Y.2d 972; Bertman v. Board of Mgrs., 233 A.D.2d 283; Jornov v. Ace Suzuki Sales Serv., 232 A.D.2d 855; Grillo v. New York City Tr. Auth., 214 A.D.2d 648).
Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.