his land to ensure that the property is maintained in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, considering the purpose of the person's presence, the likelihood of injury and the burden of avoiding the risk (see, Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233). It is also the duty of a storekeeper to prevent any obstruction to its customers in the aisles of its store (Lederer v. Samuel Broadway Food Corp., 33 A.D.2d 553). Foreseeability does not require the prediction of the exact manner in which the negligence will result in injury (Mace v. Ryder Truck Rental, 55 A.D.2d 432). It is enough that the defendant be aware of the risk of danger (Johnson v. State of New York, 37 N.Y.2d 378). It was within the jury's province to find that Waldbaums should have known that Dean's delivery practice created a strong likelihood of injury to customers (cf., Morris v. Troy Sav. Bank, 32 A.D.2d 237, affd 28 N.Y.2d 619). Thus, we cannot say as a matter of law that the accident was unforeseeable (Gross v. Waldbaum, Inc., 102 Misc.2d 175). For the same reason, the act of the Dean's delivery person is not an intervening cause which would relieve Waldbaums of the consequences of its own negligence.