Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Jeannette MIILLER and Duane Miiller, Appellants, v. Harold STEIN, Respondent.
Supreme Court properly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiffs, prospective buyers of defendant's property, allege that, while they were inspecting defendant's property, plaintiff Jeannette Miiller was injured when she slipped on a man-made ridge that was hidden in tall grass. In support of the motion, defendant denied knowledge of the ridge, which was in an unmowed, unimproved section of the property. In response, plaintiffs failed to offer proof to support their contention that the ridge was man-made and that defendant had knowledge of its existence, thereby failing to raise an issue of fact (see generally, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718). Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that the ridge was “clearly not an invisible obstacle” and that defendant therefore cannot claim lack of notice of the ridge. However, under those circumstances, defendant would have no duty to warn. There is no duty to warn of “ ‘a condition that can be readily observed by the reasonable use of senses' ” (Cimino v. Town of Hempstead, 110 A.D.2d 805, 806, 488 N.Y.S.2d 68, affd. 66 N.Y.2d 709, 496 N.Y.S.2d 425, 487 N.E.2d 282, quoting Olsen v. State of New York, 30 A.D.2d 759, 291 N.Y.S.2d 833, affd. 25 N.Y.2d 665, 306 N.Y.S.2d 474, 254 N.E.2d 774; see also, Zaffiris v. O'Loughlin, 184 A.D.2d 696, 585 N.Y.S.2d 94).
Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: September 30, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)