Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
It 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 N.Y.2d 470, 475; Cannon v Pfleider, 19 A.D.2d 625, 626). A failure to remove all of the snow is not negligence (Spicehandler v City of New York, 303 N.Y. 946; Herrick v Grand Union Co., 1 A.D.2d 911; Glassman v City of New York, 284 App. Div. 1045, affd 1 N.Y.2d 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 A.D.2d 156, 158; Fiato v State of New York, 26 Misc.2d 479). The plaintiffs offered no evidentiary proof that the defendant third-party plaintiff created a dangerous condition or made any attempts at snow removal. Thus, the plaintiffs failed to make out a prima facie case and the defendant third-party plaintiff is entitled to judgment on the complaint as a matter of law (Giotto v Gaetano, 178 A.D.2d 978; Sheehan v Rubenstein, 154 A.D.2d 663; Palazzo v S.P.H.E. Real Estate, 105 A.D.2d 1017). In addition, as the defendant third-party plaintiff is an out-of-possession landlord who maintained no rights of control over the leased premises, there is no basis upon which to impose liability (Festa v Waskawic, 181 A.D.2d 758; Sheehan v Rubenstein, 154 A.D.2d 663, supra).
We have reviewed the plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Harwood, J.P., Balletta, Miller and Copertino, JJ., concur.