It is well settled that an owner of property has a nondelegable duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition, taking into account foreseeability of injuries to others (see Basso v Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241 [1976]; Drake v Sagbolt, LLC, 112 A.D.3d 1132, 1132-1133 [3d Dept 2013]). "A property owner will be held liable for a slip-and-fall accident involving snow and ice on its property only when it created the dangerous condition which caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of its existence" (Giambruno v Albrechet, 192 A.D.3d 671, 672 [2d Dept 2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Van Duser v Mount St. Mary Coll., 176 A.D.3d 1532, 1532 [3d Dept 2019]). "In order to demonstrate constructive notice, there must be a showing that the condition was visible and apparent and existed for a sufficient period of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant[s] to discover it and take corrective action" (Rose v Kozak, 175 A.D.3d 1656, 1658 [3d Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; accord Hill v Aubin, 188 A.D.3d 1520, 1521 [3d Dept 2020]).

"A property owner will be held liable for a slip-and-fall accident involving ice and snow on its property only when it created the dangerous condition which caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of its existence." Giambruno v. Albrechet, 192 A.D.3d 671, 672 (2d Dept. 2021); Ahmetaj v. Mountainview Condominium, 171 A.D.3d 683, 684 (2d Dept. 2019). However, "[t]he proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case."

The plaintiff appeals. "A defendant property owner moving for summary judgment in an action predicated upon the presence of snow or ice has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the snow or ice condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall nor had actual or constructive notice of that condition" ( Miller v. Terrace City Lodge No. 1499, Improved Benevolent Protection Order of the Elks of the World of Yonkers, N.Y., Inc., 197 A.D.3d 643, 644, 153 N.Y.S.3d 118 ; seeGiambruno v. Albrechet, 192 A.D.3d 671, 672, 139 N.Y.S.3d 852 ; Castillo v. Silvercrest, 134 A.D.3d 977, 24 N.Y.S.3d 86 ). "A defendant has constructive notice of a hazardous condition on property when the condition is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it" ( Miller v. Terrace City Lodge No. 1499, Improved Benevolent Protection Order of the Elks of the World of Yonkers, N.Y., Inc., 197 A.D.3d at 644, 153 N.Y.S.3d 118 ; seeGordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837–838, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774 ). "To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell" ( Birnbaum v. New York Racing Assn., Inc., 57 A.D.3d 598, 598–599, 869 N.Y.S.2d 222 ; seeAhmetaj v. Mountainview Condominium, 171 A.D.3d 683, 684, 98 N.Y.S.3d 104 ).

The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appeals. A property owner or a party in possession or control of real property moving for summary judgment in an action predicated upon the presence of snow or ice has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the snow or ice condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall nor had actual or constructive notice of that condition (seeMiller v. Terrace City Lodge No. 1499, Improved Benevolent Protection Order of the Elks of the World of Yonkers, N.Y., Inc., 197 A.D.3d 643, 644, 153 N.Y.S.3d 118 ; Giambruno v. Albrechet, 192 A.D.3d 671, 672, 139 N.Y.S.3d 852 ; see alsoChang v. Marmon Enters., Inc., 172 A.D.3d 678, 99 N.Y.S.3d 397 ). "Thus, a defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it" ( Castillo v. Silvercrest, 134 A.D.3d 977, 977, 24 N.Y.S.3d 86 ; seeSteffens v. Sachem Cent. Sch. Dist., 190 A.D.3d 1003, 1004, 140 N.Y.S.3d 253 ).

In an order entered October 22, 2019, the Supreme Court denied the motion, and the defendant appeals. A defendant property owner moving for summary judgment in an action predicated upon the presence of snow or ice has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the snow or ice condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall nor had actual or constructive notice of that condition (see Giambruno v Albrechet, 192 A.D.3d 671, 672; Steffens v Sachem Cent. Sch. Dist., 190 A.D.3d 1003; Ghent v Santiago, 173 A.D.3d 693, 694; Castillo v Silvercrest, 134 A.D.3d 977). The defendant's prima facie burden "may be satisfied by 'presenting evidence that there was a storm in progress when the . . . plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell'" (Beaton v City of New York, 196 A.D.3d 625, 626, quoting Smith v Christ's First Presbyt.

In an order entered October 22, 2019, the Supreme Court denied the motion, and the defendant appeals. A defendant property owner moving for summary judgment in an action predicated upon the presence of snow or ice has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the snow or ice condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall nor had actual or constructive notice of that condition (seeGiambruno v. Albrechet, 192 A.D.3d 671, 672, 139 N.Y.S.3d 852 ; Steffens v. Sachem Cent. Sch. Dist., 190 A.D.3d 1003, 140 N.Y.S.3d 253 ; Ghent v. Santiago, 173 A.D.3d 693, 694, 102 N.Y.S.3d 100 ; Castillo v. Silvercrest, 134 A.D.3d 977, 24 N.Y.S.3d 86 ). The defendant's prima facie burden "may be satisfied by ‘presenting evidence that there was a storm in progress when the ... plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell’ " ( Beaton v. City of New York, 196 A.D.3d 625, 626, 151 N.Y.S.3d 678, quoting Smith v. Christ's First Presbyt.

The plaintiff appeals. A defendant property owner moving for summary judgment in an action predicated upon the presence of snow or ice has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the snow or ice condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall nor had actual or constructive notice of that condition (see Giambruno v Albrechet, 192 A.D.3d 671, 672; Steffens v Sachem Cent. Sch. Dist., 190 A.D.3d 1003, 1004). "Thus, a defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it" (Castillo v Silvercrest, 134 A.D.3d 977; see Steffens v Sachem Cent. Sch. Dist., 190 A.D.3d at 1003).

The plaintiff appeals. A defendant property owner moving for summary judgment in an action predicated upon the presence of snow or ice has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the snow or ice condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall nor had actual or constructive notice of that condition (seeGiambruno v. Albrechet, 192 A.D.3d 671, 672, 139 N.Y.S.3d 852 ; Steffens v. Sachem Cent. Sch. Dist., 190 A.D.3d 1003, 1004, 140 N.Y.S.3d 253 ). "Thus, a defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it" ( Castillo v. Silvercrest, 134 A.D.3d 977, 24 N.Y.S.3d 86 ; seeSteffens v. Sachem Cent. Sch. Dist., 190 A.D.3d at 1003, 140 N.Y.S.3d 253 ). A defendant has constructive notice of a hazardous condition on property when the condition is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it (seeGordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837–838, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774 ). "To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in q

A defendant property owner moving for summary judgment in an action predicated upon the presence of snow or ice has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the snow or ice condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall nor had actual or constructive notice of that condition (see Giambruno v Albrechet, 192 A.D.3d 671, 672; Steffens v Sachem Cent. Sch. Dist., 190 A.D.3d 1003; Ghent v Santiago, 173 A.D.3d 693, 694; Castillo v Silvercrest, 134 A.D.3d 977). The defendant's prima facie burden "may be satisfied by 'presenting evidence that there was a storm in progress when the . . . plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell'" (Beaton v City of New York, 196 A.D.3d 625, 626, quoting Smith v Christ's First Presbyt. Church of Hempstead, 93 A.D.3d 83, 839-840)

In an order entered October 22, 2019, the Supreme Court denied the motion, and the defendant appeals. A defendant property owner moving for summary judgment in an action predicated upon the presence of snow or ice has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the snow or ice condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall nor had actual or constructive notice of that condition (see Giambruno v Albrechet, 192 A.D.3d 671, 672; Steffens v Sachem Cent. Sch. Dist., 190 A.D.3d 1003; Ghent v Santiago, 173 A.D.3d 693, 694; Castillo v Silvercrest, 134 A.D.3d 977). The defendant's prima facie burden "may be satisfied by 'presenting evidence that there was a storm in progress when the... plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell'" (Beaton v City of New York, 196 A.D.3d 625, 626, quoting Smith v Christ's First Presbyt.