Opinion
08-28-2024
Jodian KERR–INNISS, appellant, v. Ray WILLIAMS, respondent
David Resnick & Associates, P.C. (Monier Law Firm, PLLC, New York, NY [Philip Monier III], of counsel), for appellant. Kelly, Rode & Kelly, LLP, Mineola, NY (Eric P. Tosca of counsel), for respondent.
David Resnick & Associates, P.C. (Monier Law Firm, PLLC, New York, NY [Philip Monier III], of counsel), for appellant.
Kelly, Rode & Kelly, LLP, Mineola, NY (Eric P. Tosca of counsel), for respondent.
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P., PAUL WOOTEN, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, LAURENCE L. LOVE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pam B. Jackman-Brown, J.), entered May 16, 2023. The order granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell on snow and ice along a snow-covered backyard area on the defendant’s premises. The plaintiff’s deposition testimony established that she had seen the snow and ice condition prior to her fall and that she had stepped off the defendant’s cleared driveway to traverse the snow-covered backyard area to access garbage pails in the rear of the premises. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In an order entered May 16, 2023, the Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion. The plaintiff appeals, and we affirm.
A property owner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition (see Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 352 N.E.2d 868). "The scope of that duty is defined by ‘the foreseeability of the possible harm’ " (Aloi v. Dubriske, 203 A.D.3d 998, 999, 162 N.Y.S.3d 743, quoting Tagle v. Jakob, 97 N.Y.2d 165, 168, 737 N.Y.S.2d 331, 763 N.E.2d 107). "However, there is no duty to protect or warn of conditions that are not inherently dangerous and that are readily observable by the reasonable use of one’s senses" (Costidis v. City of New York, 159 A.D.3d 871, 871, 70 N.Y.S.3d 74; see Martinez v. Fairfield Hills E., LLC, 213 A.D.3d 837, 837, 183 N.Y.S.3d 536).
Here, the defendant demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by establishing that he had no duty to remedy the snow and ice condition along the backyard area, which was not intended to be traversed (see Grosskopf v. Beechwood Org., 166 A.D.3d 860, 860, 88 N.Y.S.3d 561; Belo–Osagie v. Starrett City Assn., 41 A.D.3d 521, 521, 836 N.Y.S.2d 441; Wesolowski v. Wesolowski, 306 A.D.2d 402, 760 N.Y.S.2d 886), and that the snow and ice condition was open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous (see De Chica v. Saldana, 153 A.D.3d 782, 783, 59 N.Y.S.3d 794). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions.
CONNOLLY, J.P., WOOTEN, DOWLING and LOVE, JJ., concur.