HOEFLER v. SHOREHAM WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Joseph A. Santorelli, J.), dated July 15, 2025.  The order denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

On July 21, 2021, the plaintiff Cheryl Hoefler (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) allegedly was injured when she struck her head on an air conditioning unit protruding from a window in a courtyard of a school.  In October 2022, the injured plaintiff, and her husband suing derivatively, commenced this action against the defendant, which owned the subject premises.  Thereafter, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.  In an order dated July 15, 2025, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion.  The defendant appeals.

A property owner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition (see Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241).  “In a premises liability case, a defendant property owner ․ who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the alleged defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence” (Velazquez v. County of Westchester, 237 AD3d 1137, 1138 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).  However, a property owner has no duty to protect or warn against conditions that are open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Young Min Kim v Jetro Cash & Carry Enters., LLC, 236 AD3d 1090, 1091;  Martinez v. Fairfield Hills E., LLC, 213 AD3d 837).  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 (see Martinez v. Fairfield Hills E., LLC, 213 AD3d at 837;  Williams v. E & R Jamaica Food Corp., 202 AD3d 1028, 1029).

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that the air conditioning unit protruding from the window was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Erario v. Wen Shirley, LLC, 169 AD3d 770, 770;  Mareno v Shorenstein Realty Servs., L.P., 44 AD3d 911, 912).  In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

IANNACCI, J.P., WOOTEN, VENTURA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.