FITZGERALD v. SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY (2005)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated April 10, 2004, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 The plaintiff alleges that she sustained injuries when her foot struck a floor-to-ceiling tiled wall that she encountered upon opening a ladies' room door at the defendant's store.   In support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572).   The wall in question did not constitute an inherently dangerous condition (see Cupo v. Karfunkel, 1 A.D.3d 48, 767 N.Y.S.2d 40).   There was simply no evidence presented by the plaintiff demonstrating that the protruding wall had the characteristics of a trap or snare (see Morris v. Greenburgh Cent. School Dist. No. 7, 5 A.D.3d 567, 774 N.Y.S.2d 74).   The plaintiff's deposition testimony established that the wall was readily visible upon opening the door.   Such a wall is precisely the type of claimed hazard that would necessarily be noticed by any careful observer, so as to make a warning superfluous (see Canetti v. AMCI, Ltd., 281 A.D.2d 381, 721 N.Y.S.2d 398;  Wint v. Fulton St. Art Gallery, 263 A.D.2d 541, 694 N.Y.S.2d 97;  cf. Westbrook v. WR Activities-Cabrera Mkts., 5 A.D.3d 69, 773 N.Y.S.2d 38).

 In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.   The affidavit of the plaintiff's expert provided no details regarding exact measurements or specific violations of the New York City Building Construction Code. His conclusory belief that the wall violated that code, without more, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact (cf. Raimondo v. St. Andrew's R.C. Church Society of the Town of Tonawanda, 247 A.D.2d 875, 668 N.Y.S.2d 808).