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.
Emory Nesbitt, et al., appellants, v. Town of Poughkeepsie, respondent.
Argued—September 22, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated August 20, 2010, 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 landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe manner” (Capasso v. Village of Goshen, 84 AD3d 998, 999 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233; Russ v. Fried, 73 AD3d 1153, 1154). “However, there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition which, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous” (Capasso v. Village of Goshen, 84 AD3d at 999 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Russ v. Fried, 73 AD3d at 1154; Cupo v. Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48). “Although the question of whether a condition is hidden or open and obvious is generally for the finder of fact to determine, the court may determine that a risk is open and obvious as a matter of law where clear and undisputed evidence compels such a conclusion” (Capasso v. Village of Goshen, 84 AD3d at 999; see Tagle v. Jakob, 97 N.Y.2d 165, 169; cf. Cupo v. Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48; Gibbons v Lido & Point Lookout Fire Dist., 293 A.D.2d 646).
Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence to demonstrate that, under the circumstances of this case, the condition complained of was not inherently dangerous and was readily observable by the reasonable use of one's senses (see Capasso v. Village of Goshen, 84 AD3d at 999–1000). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., DICKERSON, CHAMBERS and LOTT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2010–09300 (Index No. 1251 /08)
Decided: October 11, 2011
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)