Opinion
2012-05-15
Natasha KING, respondent, v. 230 PARK OWNERS CORP., et al., appellants.
Gannon, Lawrence & Rosenfarb, New York, N.Y. (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for appellants. Kenneth A. Wilhelm, New York, N.Y. (Susan R. Nudelman, Barry Liebman, and Rory Shectman of counsel), for respondent.
Gannon, Lawrence & Rosenfarb, New York, N.Y. (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for appellants. Kenneth A. Wilhelm, New York, N.Y. (Susan R. Nudelman, Barry Liebman, and Rory Shectman of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated June 16, 2011, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A landowner has a duty to maintain his or her premises in a reasonably safe manner ( see Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 352 N.E.2d 868). However, he or she has no duty to protect or warn against open and obvious conditions that are not inherently dangerous ( see Weiss v. Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist., 70 A.D.3d 932, 933, 893 N.Y.S.2d 877; Bretts v. Lincoln Plaza Assoc., Inc., 67 A.D.3d 943, 944, 890 N.Y.S.2d 87; Murray v. Dockside 500 Mar., Inc., 32 A.D.3d 832, 833, 821 N.Y.S.2d 608; Cupo v. Karfunkel, 1 A.D.3d 48, 51, 767 N.Y.S.2d 40).
Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff's injuries was open, obvious, and not inherently dangerous ( see Cassone v. State of New York, 85 A.D.3d 837, 839, 925 N.Y.S.2d 197; Beck v. Bethpage Union Free School Dist., 82 A.D.3d 1026, 1028, 919 N.Y.S.2d 192; Stoppeli v. Yacenda, 78 A.D.3d 815, 815–816, 911 N.Y.S.2d 119; Mazzarelli v. 54 Plus Realty Corp., 54 A.D.3d 1008, 864 N.Y.S.2d 554). “Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers” ( Stoppeli v. Yacenda, 78 A.D.3d at 816, 911 N.Y.S.2d 119).
*901 Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.