Summary
holding that yellow and blue cable cover, “over which the plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell while attending a trade show,” was not inherently dangerous
Summary of this case from Chaney v. Starbucks Corp.Opinion
2012-01-24
Kathleen HOLDOS, appellant, v. AMERICAN CONSUMER SHOWS, INC., et al., respondents.
Schwartzapfel Partners, P.C. (Alexander J. Wulwick, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale, N.Y. (Evan H. Krinick and Cheryl F. Korman of counsel), for respondent American Consumer Shows, Inc.
Schwartzapfel Partners, P.C. (Alexander J. Wulwick, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale, N.Y. (Evan H. Krinick and Cheryl F. Korman of counsel), for respondent American Consumer Shows, Inc. James R. Pieret, Garden City, N.Y., for respondent Gordon L. Seaman, Inc.ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., ARIEL E. BELEN, SHERI S. ROMAN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated March 9, 2011, as granted those branches of the separate motions of the defendant American Consumer Shows, Inc., and the defendant Gordon L. Seaman, Inc., which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
There is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition which, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous ( see Cupo v. Karfunkel, 1 A.D.3d 48, 767 N.Y.S.2d 40). Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them by presenting evidence that the yellow and blue cable cover over which the plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell while attending a trade show in a community college gymnasium was open and obvious, and was not inherently dangerous ( see Russ v. Fried, 73 A.D.3d 1153, 1154, 901 N.Y.S.2d 703; Jang Hee Lee v. Sung Whun Oh, 3 A.D.3d 473, 474, 771 N.Y.S.2d 134; see also Pipitone v. 7–Eleven, Inc., 67 A.D.3d 879, 880, 889 N.Y.S.2d 234). In opposition , the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572; Khaimova v. Osnat Corp., 21 A.D.3d 401, 799 N.Y.S.2d 779).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendants' separate motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.