GRILLO v. BROOKLYN HOSPITAL (2001)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated April 26, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment.   A triable issue of fact exists as to whether the ice on which the injured plaintiff slipped and fell was formed when piles of snow created by the defendant during a prior storm melted and refroze (see, Grizzaffi v. Paparodero Holding Corp., 261 A.D.2d 437, 690 N.Y.S.2d 93;  Reidy v. EZE Equip. Co., 234 A.D.2d 593, 652 N.Y.S.2d 534;  Kay v. Flying Goose, 203 A.D.2d 332, 610 N.Y.S.2d 70;  Glick v. City of New York, 139 A.D.2d 402, 526 N.Y.S.2d 464).   It was snowing at the time the injured plaintiff fell.   While ordinarily there is no duty to remove snow during an ongoing storm, if one takes steps to remove snow and ice, liability may result if those efforts create a hazardous condition or exacerbate a natural hazard created by the storm (see, Suntken v. 226 W. 75th St., 258 A.D.2d 314, 685 N.Y.S.2d 217;  see also, Rugova v. 2199 Holland Ave. Apt. Corp., 272 A.D.2d 261, 708 N.Y.S.2d 390).