Opinion
November 10, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D'Emilio, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.
Nock Brother Fine Landscaping Service has demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the assertion that it committed no acts of negligence in snow plowing certain residential premises ( see, Gentile v Rotterdam Sq., 226 A.D.2d 973; Kay v. Flying Goose, 203 A.D.2d 332; see also, DeCurtis v. T. H. Assocs., 241 A.D.2d 536; cf., Autrino v. Housrath's Landscape Maintenance, 231 A.D.2d 943). The materials submitted in opposition to the motion failed to raise any genuine issues of triable fact. A "shadowy semblance of an issue or bald conclusory allegations, even if believable, are insufficient" to defeat a motion for summary judgment ( Kazakius v. Bistricer, 180 A.D.2d 666; see, Andre v. Pomeroy, 35 N.Y.2d 361, 364; see, Capelin Assocs. v. Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 N.Y.2d 338; see also, Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos, 46 N.Y.2d 223, 231; Colonial Commercial Corp. v. Breskel Assocs., 238 A.D.2d 539).
Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.