Opinion
Argued May 31, 1978
Decided July 6, 1978
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, DOROTHY E. KENT, J.
Arthur N. Seiff for appellant.
Allen G. Schwartz, Corporation Counsel (Paul T. Rephen and Bernard Burstein of counsel), for City of New York, respondent.
Sidney A. Schwartz and John T. McDonald for Paul Wiener, respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff's proof, viewed in its most favorable light, fails to disclose that under the circumstances present here, the City of New York was negligent in permitting the extraordinary snowfall to exist for an unreasonable period of time or that it had a reasonable opportunity to remedy the condition (Reutlinger v City of New York, 281 N.Y. 592; Schlausky v City of New York, 41 A.D.2d 156, 158). Nor was there adequate proof adduced at trial from which a jury could impose liability on defendant landlord since there was no showing that he created a dangerous condition or that the shoveling actually made the existing mass of snow any more dangerous than it had been previously (Cardoza v Sheiner, 33 A.D.2d 663, affd 26 N.Y.2d 897).
Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed.