SOLAZZO v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (2005)

 OPINION OF THE COURT

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

 A property owner will not be held liable in negligence for a plaintiff's injuries sustained as the result of an icy condition occurring during an ongoing storm or for a reasonable time thereafter (see Valentine v. City of New York, 86 A.D.2d 381, 383, 449 N.Y.S.2d 991 [1st Dept.1982], affd. 57 N.Y.2d 932, 457 N.Y.S.2d 240, 443 N.E.2d 488 [1982] ).   Here, it had been snowing, sleeting and raining on and off all day and the steps down into the subway were exposed to those weather conditions.   Thus, summary judgment was properly granted in defendants' favor.

 Plaintiffs argue that the ongoing storm doctrine should not apply because his injury was caused by a recurring hazardous condition of which defendant Transit Authority was aware.   A general awareness that the stairs and platforms become wet during inclement weather was insufficient to establish constructive notice of the specific condition causing plaintiff's injury (see Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 967, 969, 622 N.Y.S.2d 493, 646 N.E.2d 795 [1994] ).

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

MEMORANDUM.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO, READ and R.S. SMITH concur.