The various efforts made by the city to clear away the snow and ice from the streets of New York were fully recognized by the experienced and capable Referee who tried this case; such proof by the city of its conduct in endeavoring to cope with the extraordinary conditions caused by the great storm was clearly competent and if the offer of proof had been pressed, such evidence would doubtless have been received. (Reutlinger v. City of New York, 255 A.D. 848, affd. 281 N.Y. 592; Shyatt v. City of New York, 258 A.D. 883, affd. 283 N.Y. 708; Kirsch v. City of New York, 289 N.Y. 684; Yonki v. City of New York, supra; Rapoport v. City of New York, supra.) Even if we were to assume that plaintiff established by a fair pre-ponderance of evidence negligent failure of the city to remove the snow caused by the blizzard, there is lacking proof that plaintiff's fall was due to the accumulation of snow left as a result of the blizzard and that it may not have been due to the slippery condition caused by the ice storm prevailing at the time of the accident.
Plaintiff failed to show actionable negligence by defendant. ( Balzer v. City of New York, 279 N.Y. 742; Reutlinger v. City of New York, 281 N.Y. 592; Shyatt v. City of New York, 258 App. Div. 883, affd. 283 N.Y. 708; Taylor v. City of Yonkers, 105 N.Y. 202, 206; Egan v. City of New York, 175 App. Div. 358, and cases cited.) Close, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Lewis, JJ., concur.