LASKY v. DALY (2008)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated April 12, 2007, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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;  Rao-Boyle v. Alperstein, 44 A.D.3d 1022, 844 N.Y.S.2d 386;  Espinoza v. Hemar Supermarket, Inc., 43 A.D.3d 855, 841 N.Y.S.2d 680).   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 Rao-Boyle v. Alperstein, 44 A.D.3d 1022, 844 N.Y.S.2d 386;  Espinoza v. Hemar Supermarket, Inc., 43 A.D.3d 855, 841 N.Y.S.2d 680;  Cupo v. Karfunkel, 1 A.D.3d 48, 767 N.Y.S.2d 40).   Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence demonstrating that the condition complained of was open and obvious, known to the plaintiff, and not inherently dangerous (see Rao-Boyle v. Alperstein, 44 A.D.3d 1022, 844 N.Y.S.2d 386;  Espinoza v. Hemar Supermarket, Inc., 43 A.D.3d 855, 841 N.Y.S.2d 680;  Morgan v. TJX Cos., Inc., 38 A.D.3d 508, 831 N.Y.S.2d 482;  Hecht v. 281 Scarsdale Corp., 3 A.D.3d 551, 770 N.Y.S.2d 643;  Sorce v. Great Oak Mar., 282 A.D.2d 598, 723 N.Y.S.2d 505).   In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.   Accordingly, the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted.