Opinion
Argued February 17, 2000.
July 17, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated December 15, 1998, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.
Michael F. X. Manning, Garden City, N.Y. (John P. Humphreys of counsel), for appellant Stanan Management Corporation.
Greenfield Hastings, Jericho, N.Y. (Kenneth T. Boyd and Brian Greenfield of counsel), for appellant JMF Landscaping Company.
William F. Chimeri, Freeport, N.Y., for respondents.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motions are granted, and the complaint and cross claims are dismissed.
An owner of real property may be liable for a hazardous snow or ice condition created on its property as a result of a storm or a temperature fluctuation only upon a showing that it had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition, and that a sufficient period of time had elapsed since the cessation of the storm or temperature fluctuation to remedy the condition (see, Madden v. Vil. of Tarrytown, 266 A.D.2d 358; Pepito v. City of New York, 262 A.D.2d 619). The plaintiffs failed to rebut the prima facie showing by the defendant Stanan Management Corporation (hereinafter Stanan) that it had no actual or constructive notice of the allegedly hazardous condition in its parking lot, and that it was not afforded a sufficient period of time to remedy that condition (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; Pepito v. City of New York, supra; Byrd v. Church of Christ Uniting, 192 A.D.2d 967). Therefore, Stanan was entitled to summary judgment (see, Madden v. Vil. of Tarrytown, supra).
Moreover, the Supreme Court also erred in denying summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross claims insofar as asserted against the defendant JMF Landscaping Company (hereinafter JMF). JMF did not assume a duty to exercise reasonable care to the plaintiff by virtue of its snow removal contract with Stanan. Its limited contractual undertaking was not a comprehensive and exclusive property maintenance obligation intended to displace Stanan's duty as a landowner to maintain the property safely (see, Oppenheim v. One School St. Professional Corp., 263 A.D.2d 472; Riekers v. Gold Coast Plaza, 255 A.D.2d 373; Girardi v. Bank of New York Co., 249 A.D.2d 443; Boskey v. Gazza Props., 248 A.D.2d 344; Autrino v. Hausrath's Landscape Maintenance, 231 A.D.2d 943; Bourk v. National Cleaning, 174 A.D.2d 827).