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.
Stephen ATANASOFF, respondent, v. ELMONT UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, appellant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated May 5, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The plaintiff was injured when he fell attempting to climb through a locked gate located at the rear of the defendant's Gotham Avenue Elementary School property. The gates were fastened together with a chain attached to a metal pole. According to the plaintiff, as he stepped onto the pole's cement base and slid between the gates, he heard a “snapping” sound in his leg and fell to the ground. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that there was a question of fact as to whether the defendant exercised reasonable care in maintaining the gate and fence in a safe condition. We reverse.
The defendant met its prima facie burden of establishing that the condition of the gate was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see DiVietro v. Gould Palisades Corp., 4 A.D.3d 324, 771 N.Y.S.2d 527; Cupo v. Karfunkel, 1 A.D.3d 48, 767 N.Y.S.2d 40). The gate was chained closed to keep persons from entering the property and the plaintiff's testimony failed to identify the nature of the allegedly dangerous condition that caused his injury. By his own testimony, the plaintiff was aware of the condition of the gate because he visited and climbed through the gated area many times before (see Jang Hee Lee v. Sung Whun Oh, 3 A.D.3d 473, 771 N.Y.S.2d 134; see also Macey v. Truman, 70 N.Y.2d 918, 524 N.Y.S.2d 393, 519 N.E.2d 304).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Oberstein v. Mayfair Super Mkts., 298 A.D.2d 446, 748 N.Y.S.2d 271; see also Tagle v. Jakob, 97 N.Y.2d 165, 737 N.Y.S.2d 331, 763 N.E.2d 107; Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 23, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)