Opinion
2012-05-30
Elpida STAMATATOS, appellant, v. Anna STAMATATOS, respondent, et al., defendant.
Elpida Stamatatos, Ridge, N.Y., appellant pro se. Hammill, O'Brien, Croutier, Dempsey, Pender & Koehler, P.C., Syosset, N.Y. (Anton Piotroski of counsel), for respondent.
Elpida Stamatatos, Ridge, N.Y., appellant pro se. Hammill, O'Brien, Croutier, Dempsey, Pender & Koehler, P.C., Syosset, N.Y. (Anton Piotroski of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, Jr., J.), dated March 10, 2011, which granted the motion of the defendant Anna Stamatatos for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
“A landowner owes a duty to another on his [or her] land to keep it in a reasonably safe condition, considering all of the circumstances including the purpose of the person's presence and the likelihood of injury” ( Macey v. Truman, 70 N.Y.2d 918, 919, 524 N.Y.S.2d 393, 519 N.E.2d 304;see Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 352 N.E.2d 868). “Where an injury results ‘not from any unsafe condition defendant left uncorrected on his [or her] land, but as a direct result of the course plaintiff ... decided to pursue ... the law impose[s] no duty on defendant as landowner to protect plaintiff from the unfortunate consequences of his [or her] own actions' ” ( Marino v. Bingler, 60 A.D.3d 645, 647, 874 N.Y.S.2d 542, quoting Macey v. Truman, 70 N.Y.2d at 919, 524 N.Y.S.2d 393, 519 N.E.2d 304).
Here, the defendant Anna Stamatatos (hereinafter the respondent) established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff's injury did not result from a physical defect on her property, that the injury resulted solely from the manner in which the plaintiff chose to perform certain work on the respondent's house, and that the respondent did not exercise any control or supervision over the plaintiff ( see McNulty v. Executive Kitchens, 294 A.D.2d 411, 412, 742 N.Y.S.2d 354;Prairie v. Sacandaga Bible Conference Camp, 252 A.D.2d 940, 941, 676 N.Y.S.2d 352). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Baggott v. Corcoran, 48 A.D.3d 1182, 1183, 850 N.Y.S.2d 780;see also Farley v. Smith, 172 A.D.2d 800, 801, 569 N.Y.S.2d 172). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.