Opinion
June 17, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.).
Summary judgment should have been granted here. "`[A]n 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' * * * and therefore, to incur liability, the owner's snow-removal attempt must have made the sidewalk more dangerous" ( Jimenez v. Cummings, 226 A.D.2d 112, quoting Stewart v. Haleviym, 189 A.D.2d 731). Appellants demonstrated that they were out-of-possession landlords of the delicatessen premises and paragraph 22 of the lease agreement with the delicatessen owners specifically provides that the latter would be responsible for keeping "the sidewalk and curb in front thereof clean at all times and free from snow and ice" ( see, Suntken v. 226 W. 75th St., 258 A.D.2d 314). Furthermore, appellants adduced uncontroverted evidence that while they routinely undertook snow removal efforts at the 94th Street residential entrance to the premises, they never did so at the separate Amsterdam Avenue entrance to the delicatessen. Plaintiff's assertion that the landlord's right of reentry for repairs or improvements created a triable issue of fact as to liability is without merit given the reentry provision's clear reference to permanent structures as opposed to snowfall, a transient condition specifically addressed by the aforementioned paragraph 22 of the lease.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.