BAUTE MESTRE v. STOP SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY LLC (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Erica L. Prager, J.), entered January 3, 2025.  The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries that she alleged she sustained when she tripped and fell over a U-boat dolly in the frozen foods aisle of the defendant's supermarket.  The defendant moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending, among other things, that the presence of the U-boat dolly was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous.  In an order entered January 3, 2025, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.  The plaintiff appeals.

“Store owners are charged with the duty of keeping their premises in a reasonably safe condition for the benefit of their customers” (Russo v. Home Goods, Inc., 119 AD3d 924, 925;  see Cortes v King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc., 210 AD3d 949).  “However, a landowner has no duty to protect or warn against conditions that are open and obvious and not inherently dangerous” (Young Min Kim v Jetro Cash & Carry Enters., LLC, 236 AD3d 1090, 1091;  see Cupo v. Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48, 52).  “A condition is open and obvious if it is readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses, given the conditions at the time of the accident” (Karlin v. K. Thompson Foods, LLC, 241 AD3d 525, 526 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Torres v. La Borinquena HDFC, Inc., 229 AD3d 830, 831).  “The determination of whether an asserted hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances, and whether a condition is not inherently dangerous, or constitutes a reasonably safe environment, depends on the totality of the specific facts of each case” (Laruccia v. Lewis J. Newton & Sons, 242 AD3d 854, 855 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Brett v. AJ 1086 Assoc., LLC, 189 AD3d 1153, 1154).

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by submitting evidence, including surveillance video footage of the accident, which demonstrated that the U-boat dolly was both open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Karlin v. K. Thompson Foods, LLC, 241 AD3d at 526;  Cortes v King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc., 210 AD3d at 950;  Nannariello v. Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc., 161 AD3d 1089, 1090;  Flaim v. Hex Food, Inc., 79 AD3d 797, 798).  In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

IANNACCI, J.P., FORD, VENTURA and QUIRK, JJ., concur.