VERGARA v. (and a third-party action). (2007)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.), dated February 22, 2006, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Daljit Kaur and Manmohan Singh which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them and the separate motion of the defendants A & S Twins Construction Corp. and Nishan Singh for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 A landowner has a duty to maintain his or her premises in a reasonably safe manner (see Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 352 N.E.2d 868).   However, he or she has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition, which is not inherently dangerous as a matter of law (see Cupo v. Karfunkel, 1 A.D.3d 48, 767 N.Y.S.2d 40).

 Here, the defendants submitted evidence sufficient to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the pile of wood which allegedly caused the plaintiff to trip and fall was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see McKinney v. Ardee Plaza, LLC., 36 A.D.3d 868, 827 N.Y.S.2d 873;  Leib v. Silo Rest., Inc., 26 A.D.3d 359, 809 N.Y.S.2d 185;  Tenenbaum v. Best 21 Ltd., 15 A.D.3d 646, 790 N.Y.S.2d 236;  Rosa v. Southren, 8 A.D.3d 648, 778 N.Y.S.2d 897;  Mansueto v. Worster, 1 A.D.3d 412, 766 N.Y.S.2d 691;  Christopher v. New York City Tr. Auth., 300 A.D.2d 336, 752 N.Y.S.2d 76;  Schoen v. King Kullen Grocery Co., 296 A.D.2d 486, 745 N.Y.S.2d 554;  Boehme v. Edgar Fabrics, 248 A.D.2d 344, 669 N.Y.S.2d 648).   In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.   The plaintiffs' contention that the motion was premature is without merit (see CPLR 3212[f] ).