COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 60896 LESLIE JOHNSTON : : Plaintiff-appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION WESTGATE JOINT VENTURE, et al : : Defendant-appellees : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : JUNE 18, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. 186,068 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. : DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: MARIO deCARIS Attorney at Law 55 Public Square, #900 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellees: RICHARD R. KUEPPER Attorney at Law 618 Huntington Building Cleveland, Ohio 44115 - 1 - FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, P.J.: Plaintiff-appellant, Leslie Johnston, timely appeals the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of defen- dants-appellees, Westgate Joint Venture, et al, and against appellant on her complaint for negligence arising out of a "slip and fall." For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court. According to the affidavit of appellant attached to appel- lant's brief in response to the motion for summary judgment, on March 15, 1988, at approximately 7:45 p.m., appellant parked at Westgate Mall to pick up items of clothes from a store in the mall. It was very cold outside, and there was a thin dusting of snow on the ground. She noticed no ice in the parking lot. While walking toward the mall entrance, she stepped over a curb, and then her feet slipped and she landed on her back. She stated that, "[a]fter she fell, she noticed the area over the curb where she had fallen was covered with a thin layer of ice which was almost invisible, and that in the same vicinity, was a drain which had ice around it and that this was the only ice noticeable to her in the area." She stated further that, ". . . it did not appear that the drain was working properly which had caused the ice to form." - 2 - Appellees' motion for summary judgment was supported by por- tions of appellant's deposition testimony and climatological data. Appellees attached a portion of appellant's testimony in which she stated that, ". . . there was a thin layer of ice that was down on the ground that was really invisible." It should be noted that appellant failed to file the deposition transcript with the trial court and did not attach any portion of the transcript to her brief in opposition for consideration by the trial court. The climatological report revealed that it snowed a total of 4.2 inches on March 15, 1988, with temperatures ranging from 20-28 degrees Fahrenheit. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of appellees and against appellant on her complaint alleg- ing negligence against appellees arising out of the slip and fall. Appellant now timely appeals, raising one assignment of error for our review. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN GRANTING DEFENDANT/APPELLEES' MOTION FOR SUM- MARY JUDGMENT AS APPELLANT HAD BY AFFIDAVIT AND DEPOSITION DEMONSTRATED THAT GENUINE ISSUES OF FACT EXIST. Appellant argues that a genuine issue of material fact exists which precludes the trial court's granting of summary judgment. Specifically, appellant contends that her affidavit and deposition testimony create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether appellant's fall was caused by an unnatural accumu- lation of ice caused by a non-functioning drain. This argument - 3 - is without merit. Civ. R. 56 provides that before summary judgment may be granted, it must be determined that: (1) no genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and, viewing such evidence most stron- gly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to that party. Petrey v. Simon (1984), 19 Ohio App. 3d 285. Civ. R. 56(E) requires that affidavits supporting or oppos- ing motions for summary judgment must set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence. Fisher v. Lewis (1988), 57 Ohio App. 3d 116, 117; Hellerstein v. Society National Bank (Oct. 25, 1990), Cuyahoga App. No. 57210, unreported. An unsupported allegation is not sufficient to defeat a properly-supported motion for summary judgment. Siegler v. Batdorff (1979), 63 Ohio App. 2d 76. An occupier of premises owes a duty to business invitees to provide a reasonably safe means of ingress and egress. Tyrell v. Investment Associates, Inc. (1984), 16 Ohio App. 3d 47, 49. None-theless, an owner of property is not liable for injuries to busi-ness invitees who slip and fall on natural accumulations of ice and snow. LaCourse v. Fleitz (1986), 28 Ohio St. 3d 209. Upon a review of the record in the present case, we find appellant has failed to set forth any competent evidence that she - 4 - fell on anything other than a natural accumulation of ice and snow. The evidence submitted by appellees reveals that 4.2 inches of snow accumulated on the day of the incident and that temperatures ranged from 20-28 degrees Fahrenheit. Furthermore, appellant's testimony that she observed a "thin layer of ice" after falling that was "really invisible" tends to support appel- lees' claim that the accumulation was a natural result of the snow and cold temperatures. The appellant's argument that the fall resulted from an unnatural accumulation of ice in that ". . . it did not appear that the drain was working properly which had caused the ice to form" is mere speculation and inadmissible as evidence that the drain was defective. See, Evid. R. 602; Helle- rstein, supra. Thus, this statement is insufficient to defeat the properly-supported motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, several portions of appellant's deposition testimony cited in appellant's appellate brief were not made a part of the record for consideration by the trial court and, therefore, cannot be considered by this reviewing court to defeat summary judgment. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting appellees' motion for summary judgment. Assignment of Error I is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 5 - It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant their costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. SPELLACY, J. HARPER, J. CONCUR PRESIDING JUDGE FRANCIS E. SWEENEY N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .