RAMSEY v. MT VERNON BOARD OF EDUCATION

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Brenda RAMSEY, et al., appellants, v. MT. VERNON BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., respondents.

Decided: September 26, 2006

HOWARD MILLER, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, REINALDO E. RIVERA, and ROBERT A. LIFSON, JJ. Worby Groner Edelman, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Michael L. Taub of counsel), for appellants. O'Connor, McGuinness, Conte, Doyle & Oleson, White Plains, N.Y. (Montgomery L. Effinger of counsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered February 17, 2005, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 While landowners have a duty to prevent the occurrence of foreseeable injuries on their premises, they are not obligated to warn against a condition that could be readily observed by the reasonable use of one's senses (see Dawson v. Cafiero, 292 A.D.2d 488, 739 N.Y.S.2d 190;  Moriello v. Stormville Airport Antique Show & Flea Mkt., 271 A.D.2d 664, 706 N.Y.S.2d 463;  Patrie v. Gorton, 267 A.D.2d 582, 699 N.Y.S.2d 218), and, was not inherently dangerous (see Cupo v. Karfunkel, 1 A.D.3d 48, 767 N.Y.S.2d 40).   Here, the wet cafeteria floor upon which the plaintiff Brenda Ramsey (hereinafter the plaintiff) slipped and fell was readily observable by a reasonable use of the plaintiff's senses, and the condition of the floor being mopped with water was not inherently dangerous.   Further, the plaintiff acknowledged that she saw the wet floor, was aware that it was being mopped immediately before she walked across it, and was aware that this was a daily occurrence.   Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Bush v. Brentwood Veterans War Mem., 302 A.D.2d 546, 755 N.Y.S.2d 99;  Dawson v. Cafiero, supra ).

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

Copied to clipboard