Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Ida GIBBONS, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LIDO AND POINT LOOKOUT FIRE DISTRICT, et al., Defendants-Respondents, Antoinette Scelzo, et al., Appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Antoinette Scelzo and Angelo Scelzo appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), entered April 26, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants.
Antoinette Scelzo and her husband Angelo (hereinafter the appellants) assisted in hosting a holiday party at a firehouse owned by the defendant Lido and Point Lookout Fire District. There were two cement parking blocks located on the floor of the firehouse near a wall. Prior to the commencement of the party, Antoinette Scelzo placed a folding chair over the end of each parking block, and an orange cone with balloons attached to it next to each chair. As the plaintiff was leaving the party, she tripped over the end of one of the parking blocks, injuring herself.
The appellants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. The subject parking block was not an inherently dangerous condition and was readily observable by the reasonable use of one's senses. There was no claim that the firehouse was inadequately lit at the time of the party. The appellants therefore did not breach any duty to the plaintiff (see Tresgallo v. Danica, 286 A.D.2d 326, 729 N.Y.S.2d 159; Chiranky v. Marshalls, Inc., 273 A.D.2d 266, 708 N.Y.S.2d 699; Dominitz v. Food Emporium, 271 A.D.2d 640, 706 N.Y.S.2d 475; Plessias v. Scalia Home for Funerals, 271 A.D.2d 423, 706 N.Y.S.2d 131; Paulo v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 233 A.D.2d 380, 650 N.Y.S.2d 578). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the appellants' motion for summary judgment (see Gibbons v. Lido and Point Lookout Fire District, 293 A.D.2d 646, 740 N.Y.S.2d 440 [decided herewith] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 22, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)