Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the judgment entered upon the plaintiffs' default in the absence of a sufficient showing of reasonable excuse for the default ( see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]).
Moreover, "[i]t is well settled that an owner of property is under no duty to pedestrians to remove ice and snow that naturally accumulates upon the sidewalk in front of his premises ( Roark v Hunting, 24 NY2d 470, 475; Cannon v Pfleider, 19 AD2d 625, 626). A failure to remove all of the snow is not negligence ( Spicehandler v City of New York, 303 NY 946; Herrick v Grand Union Co., 1 AD2d 911; Glassman v City of New York, 284 App Div 1045, affd 1 NY2d 712), and liability will not result unless it is shown that the defendant made the sidewalk more hazardous ( Herrick v Grand Union Co., supra; Schlausky v City of New York, 41 AD2d 156, 158; Fiato v State of New York, 26 Misc 2d 479)" ( Stewart v Yeshiva Nachlas Haleviym, 186 AD2d 731, 731-732; see also, Oley v Village of Massapequa Park, 198 AD2d 272).
Here, the plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence that the defendants' removal of snow was negligent and created a hazardous condition.