KAUFMANN v. LERNER NEW YORK INC (2007)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated December 13, 2005, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.   A property owner has a duty to maintain his or her property in a reasonably safe condition (see Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 352 N.E.2d 868;  Fernandez v. Edlund, 31 A.D.3d 601, 602, 819 N.Y.S.2d 291;  Capozzi v. Huhne, 14 A.D.3d 474, 788 N.Y.S.2d 152).   Nevertheless, a property owner has “no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition which, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous” (Jang Hee Lee v. Sung Whun Oh, 3 A.D.3d 473, 474, 771 N.Y.S.2d 134;  see Pirie v. Krasinski, 18 A.D.3d 848, 849, 796 N.Y.S.2d 671;  Fitzgerald v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 17 A.D.3d 522, 523, 793 N.Y.S.2d 164;  Capozzi v. Huhne, supra;  cf. Cupo v. Karfunkel, 1 A.D.3d 48, 52, 767 N.Y.S.2d 40).   Here, the defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the placement of a rolling clothing rack inside of a dressing room area corridor was not inherently dangerous and that the plaintiff had observed the clothing rack before her accident, in which she tripped over the clothing rack while attempting to step over its base (see Capozzi v. Huhne, supra;  Calderon v. Nyack Hosp., 293 A.D.2d 562, 742 N.Y.S.2d 65;  Chiranky v. Marshalls, Inc., 273 A.D.2d 266, 708 N.Y.S.2d 699;  Binensztok v. Marshall Stores, 228 A.D.2d 534, 535, 644 N.Y.S.2d 333).   In opposition to the defendant's prima facie showing, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572).