Summary
affirming summary judgment for defendant in case involving `readily observable' clothing rack
Summary of this case from Suriano v. Sears Roebuck Co.Opinion
Argued April 20, 2000.
June 12, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered June 28, 1999, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Jed Neil Kirsch, Garden City, N.Y., for appellants.
McAndrew, Conboy Prisco, Woodbury, N.Y. (Robert M. Ortiz of counsel), for respondent.
Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The injured plaintiff fell when her foot got caught on the bottom rail of a mobile clothes rack located in an aisle in the defendant's department store. The injured plaintiff testified at her deposition that she did not observe the rack at any point in time before the accident. The rack was not an inherently dangerous condition. Moreover, since the rack was readily observable by the reasonable use of one's senses, the defendant had no duty to warn the injured plaintiff of the condition (see, Maravalli v. Home Depot U.S.A., 266 A.D.2d 437; Reuscher v. Pergament Home Ctrs., 247 A.D.2d 603; Hatch v. Rog Glo, Ltd., 239 A.D.2d 771; Sewer v. Fat Albert's Warehouse, 235 A.D.2d 414). Since the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendant's prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court correctly granted summary judgment to the defendant.