DALL v. GOLDBAUM (2002)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated November 15, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendants Martin Goldbaum and Sally Goldbaum for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

During a snowstorm, the plaintiff slipped and fell on snow-covered ice while on a driveway of commercial premises owned by the defendants Martin Goldbaum and Sally Goldbaum (hereinafter the Goldbaums).   The Goldbaums, as owners, were under no duty to remove snow and ice from the driveway during the storm (see Smith v. Leslie, 270 A.D.2d 333, 334, 704 N.Y.S.2d 612;  Pohl v. Sternberg, 259 A.D.2d 742, 743, 687 N.Y.S.2d 431;  Drevis v. City of New York, 257 A.D.2d 595, 684 N.Y.S.2d 271;  Urena v. New York City Tr. Auth., 248 A.D.2d 377, 378, 669 N.Y.S.2d 662).   The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he slipped on pre-existing ice from a prior snowstorm (see Trainor v. Dayton Seaside Assocs. No. 3, 282 A.D.2d 524, 723 N.Y.S.2d 214;  Lamolly v. Mobile Veterinary Tenant Unit Enters., 276 A.D.2d 596, 597, 714 N.Y.S.2d 728;  Baum v. Knoll Farm, 259 A.D.2d 456, 686 N.Y.S.2d 83;  Fuks v. New York City Tr. Auth., 243 A.D.2d 678, 678-679, 663 N.Y.S.2d 639), or that any such ice was visible and apparent for a sufficient length of time to permit the Goldbaums to discover and remedy it (see Pala v. D. Braf, Ltd., 284 A.D.2d 382, 726 N.Y.S.2d 687;  Goodwin v. Knolls at Stony Brook Homeowners Assn., 251 A.D.2d 451, 452, 674 N.Y.S.2d 411).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.