Opinion
15269, 101323/12
05-28-2015
Shulan ZHAO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. BROOKFIELD OFFICE PROPERTIES, INC., et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Ross, Legan, Rosenberg, Zelen & Flaks, LLP, New York (Richard H. Rosenberg of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of James J. Toomey, New York (Evy L. Kazansky of counsel), for respondents.
Ross, Legan, Rosenberg, Zelen & Flaks, LLP, New York (Richard H. Rosenberg of counsel), for appellant.
Law Office of James J. Toomey, New York (Evy L. Kazansky of counsel), for respondents.
ANDRIAS, J.P., MOSKOWITZ, DeGRASSE, GISCHE, KAPNICK, JJ.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered June 17, 2014, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendants established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff was injured when she allegedly lost her balance and fell when stepping off a low concrete platform onto a cobblestone-covered surface. Defendants demonstrated that the cobblestone-covered area was an open and obvious condition and was not inherently dangerous (see e.g. Abraido v.2001 Marcus Ave. LLC, 126 A.D.3d, 4 N.Y.S.3d 43 571 [1st Dept.2015] ). Defendants referred to evidence that plaintiff traversed the cobblestone-covered area before the accident and submitted photographs of the area showing its open and obvious nature, demonstrating that it was “readily observable by anyone employing the reasonable use of their senses” (Wachspress v. Central Parking Sys. of N.Y., Inc., 111 A.D.3d 499, 499, 974 N.Y.S.2d 439 [1st Dept.2013] ).
In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Her argument that the cobblestones were obscured from view is unpreserved, as it is raised for the first time on appeal, and, in any event, is refuted by the photographic evidence.