Opinion
Argued February 20, 2001.
March 19, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant ABCO Refrigeration Supply Corporation appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated October 5, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and granted those branches of the motions of the defendant A-1 Expert Mechanical Service Corp., and the defendants SMS Food Corporation and Twentieth Equities Corp., which were for summary judgment dismissing its cross claims against them, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as granted those branches of the separate motions of the defendants SMS Food Corporation and Twentieth Equities Corp., and the defendant A-1 Expert Mechanical Service Corp., which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Capriano, Lichtman Flach, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Michael H. Skliar of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Robert A. Flaster, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Linda T. Alster-Nelson of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Bruce A. Lawrence, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Joy Campanelli and R. Alexander Hulten of counsel), for respondents Twentieth Equities Corp. and SMS Food Corporation.
Conway, Farrell, Curtin Kelly, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Thomas P. Gorton of counsel), for respondent A-1 Expert Mechanical Service Corp.
Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, P.J., DAVID S. RITTER, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying the motion of the defendant ABCO Refrigeration Supply Corporation, and substituting therefor a provision granting that motion and dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, payable by the plaintiff, and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
The defendants established, as a matter of law, that the condition complained of did not constitute an inherently dangerous condition, was not a trap for the unwary, and was readily observable by the reasonable use of the plaintiff's senses. Therefore, no duty to warn existed (see, Connor v. Taylor Rental Center, 278 A.D.2d 270 [2d Dept., Dec. 11, 2000]; Chiranky v. Marshalls, Inc., 273 A.D.2d 266; Cortese v. Paris Maintenance, 255 A.D.2d 354). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a material issue of fact requiring a trial. Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.