
    Paulo Saavedra, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.
    [26 NYS3d 687]
   Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danzinger, J.), entered August 7, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant made a prima facie showing that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the specific icy condition alleged to have caused plaintiff’s slip and fall. In support of its motion, defendant submitted deposition testimony showing its substantial snow and ice removal efforts in the area of the accident in the days preceding the accident. Defendant also submitted climatological data showing temperature fluctuations above and below freezing in the two days before the date of the accident, as well as freezing temperatures in the hours immediately preceding the accident. Taken together, defendant’s evidence shows that it would be speculative to conclude that it caused or had sufficient time to remedy the icy condition at issue (see Simmons v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 NY2d 972, 973-974 [1994]; Katz v City of New York, 11 AD3d 391 [1st Dept 2004]; see also Otero v City of New York, 248 AD2d 689, 690 [2d Dept 1998]). Defendant was not required to submit an expert’s opinion in support of its motion (see e.g. Katz, 11 AD3d at 391-392; Riviere v City of New York, 127 AD3d 720 [2d Dept 2015]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise triable issues of fact {Katz, 11 AD3d at 392).

Concur—Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Andrias and Moskowitz, JJ.  