An owner or lessee of property owes no duty to pedestrians to remove ice and snow that naturally accumulates upon the sidewalk in front of its premises, but, if it undertakes to do so, it can be held liable in negligence where its acts create or increase the hazards inherent in ice and snow on the sidewalks ( see, Keane v. City of New York, 208 A.D.2d 457; Glick v. City of New York, 139 A.D.2d 402). Here, plaintiff's assertion that he had observed that a path had been cleared in the area of the sidewalk where he fell, the lease provision requiring the store to remove snow and ice from the abutting sidewalk, the building superintendent's assertion that it was regular practice of store employees to clear snow when there was a storm, and the store owner's admission that he did not know whether his employees had shovelled snow during this storm were sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether the store's employees had attempted snow removal and thereby created or increased the hazard that caused plaintiff's injuries ( see, Glick v. City of New York, supra; cf., Hendersen v. Hickory Pit Rest., 221 A.D.2d 161, 162). However, because plaintiff made no showing to contradict the building owner's denial of any connection with snow removal, summary judgment should have been granted in this defendant's favor (see, Keane v. City of New York, supra; Sheehan v. Rubenstein, 154 A.D.2d 663).
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.