Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant Joro Carting, Inc. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendant Joro Carting, Inc. (hereinafter Joro), made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that it did not create the defective sidewalk condition upon which the plaintiff fell ( see Kleeberg v. City of New York, 305 AD2d 549; Fuentes v. City of New York, 237 AD2d 103). The plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence, in response to the motion, which raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Joro's activities caused the defect complained of. Rather, the plaintiff's opposition consisted of speculation and unsubstantiated conjecture as to the cause of the defect ( see Ioffe v. Hampshire House Apt. Corp., 21 AD3d 930; Humphreys v. Veneziano, 268 AD2d 461; Little v. City of Albany, 169 AD2d 1013).

Moreover, plaintiff testified that it was snowing heavily at the time he fell. It is well settled that a municipality is not liable for injuries involved in an accident on a public sidewalk or public roadway, while a storm is still in progress (Valentine v. City of New York, 86 A.D.2d 381 [1st Dep't., 1982] aff'd 57 N.Y.2d 932 [1983]; CalFuentes v. City of New York, 237 A.D.2d 103 [1st Dep't., 1997]).