SCLAFANI v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL (2007)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated June 20, 2006, which granted the defendants' respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

 Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, under the circumstances of this case, the defendants demonstrated “good cause” for the delay in filing their motions for summary judgment, since the note of issue was filed while there was significant discovery outstanding (see CPLR 3212[a];  Brill v. City of New York, 2 N.Y.3d 648, 652, 781 N.Y.S.2d 261, 814 N.E.2d 431;  Gonzalez v. 98 Mag Leasing Corp., 95 N.Y.2d 124, 129, 711 N.Y.S.2d 131, 733 N.E.2d 203;  Olivier v. Rodney, 27 A.D.3d 631, 632, 815 N.Y.S.2d 102;  Herrera v. Felice Realty Corp., 22 A.D.3d 723, 724, 804 N.Y.S.2d 397).

 Moreover, the defendants each established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them by presenting evidence that the concrete parking barrier over which the plaintiff tripped and fell was open and obvious, as it was readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses and, as a matter of law, was not inherently dangerous (see Zimkind v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 12 A.D.3d 593, 594, 785 N.Y.S.2d 108;  Bryant v. Superior Computer Outlet, 5 A.D.3d 343, 344, 772 N.Y.S.2d 529;  Cupo v. Karfunkel, 1 A.D.3d 48, 767 N.Y.S.2d 40).   In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Bryant v. Superior Computer Outlet, supra;  cf. Cupo v. Karfunkel, supra at 52, 767 N.Y.S.2d 40).