Peña & Kahn, PLLC, Bronx (Diane Welch Bando of counsel), for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Mackenzie Fillow of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danzinger, J.), entered August 7, 2014, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant made a prima facie showing that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the specific icy condition alleged to have caused plaintiff's slip and fall. In support of its motion, defendant submitted deposition testimony showing its substantial snow and ice removal efforts in the area of the accident in the days preceding the accident. Defendant also submitted climatological data showing temperature fluctuations above and below freezing in the two days before the date of the accident, as well as freezing temperatures in the hours immediately preceding the accident. Taken together, defendant's evidence shows that it would be speculative to conclude that it caused or had sufficient time to remedy the icy condition at issue (see Simmons v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 N.Y.2d 972, 973–974, 622 N.Y.S.2d 496, 646 N.E.2d 798 [1994] ; Katz v. City of New York, 11 A.D.3d 391, 784 N.Y.S.2d 45 [1st Dept.2004] ; see also Otero v. City of New York, 248 A.D.2d 689, 690, 670 N.Y.S.2d 545 [2d Dept.1998] ). Defendant was not required to submit an expert's opinion in support of its motion (see e.g. Katz, 11 A.D.3d at 391–392, 784 N.Y.S.2d 45 ; Riviere v. City of New York, 127 A.D.3d 720, 721, 7 N.Y.S.3d 219 [2d Dept.2015] ).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise triable issues of fact (Katz, 11 A.D.3d at 392, 784 N.Y.S.2d 45 ).

ACOSTA, J.P., RENWICK, ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ, JJ., concur.