Opinion
No. 2021-03067 Index No. 158255/17
08-03-2022
Gerard Hallahan, appellant, v. City of New York, et al., respondents.
Lipsig, Shapey, Manus & Moverman, P.C. (Alan M. Shapey and Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York, NY [Brian J. Isaac], of counsel), for appellant. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Jeremy W. Shweder and Kate Fletcher of counsel), for respondents.
Lipsig, Shapey, Manus & Moverman, P.C. (Alan M. Shapey and Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York, NY [Brian J. Isaac], of counsel), for appellant.
Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Jeremy W. Shweder and Kate Fletcher of counsel), for respondents.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), dated April 8, 2020. The order granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. By decision and order of the Appellate Division, First Department, entered April 29, 2021, this appeal was transferred to this Court for hearing and determination (see NY Const, Art VI, § 4[i]).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell while attempting to step over a velvet rope strung across a staircase located in the lobby of the courthouse at the Appellate Division, First Department (hereinafter the courthouse). The courthouse is owned and maintained by the defendants.
The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. By order dated April 8, 2020, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion. The plaintiff appeals.
While a possessor of real property has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition (see Basso v Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241), there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous (see Sneed v Fulton Park Four Assoc., L.P., 192 A.D.3d 1058, 1059; Boyd v New York City Hous. Auth., 105 A.D.3d 542, 543; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 A.D.3d 48, 52). Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the alleged defect was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Sneed v Fulton Park Four Assoc., L.P., 192 A.D.3d at 1059; Faulkner v Effective Sec. Sys., 230 A.D.2d 627, 628). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Chtchannikova v City of New York, 174 A.D.3d 572, 573-574; Gover v Mastic Beach Prop. Owners Assn., 57 A.D.3d 729, 731).
Moreover, the plaintiff's contention that the defendants' motion for summary judgment should have been denied as premature is without merit (see Mauro v City of New York, 204 A.D.3d 777; 1375 Equities Corp. v Buildgreen Solutions, LLC, 120 A.D.3d 783, 784; Santana v Danco Inc., 115 A.D.3d 560).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
DUFFY, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, IANNACCI and MILLER, JJ., concur.