Opinion
11-18-2015
Dean BOLAND, appellant, v. 480 EAST 21ST STREET, LLC, respondent.
Ornstein & Ornstein, P.C. (Alexander J. Wulwick, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant. Shein & Associates, P.C., Syosset, N.Y. (Frank A. Polacco of counsel), for respondent.
Ornstein & Ornstein, P.C. (Alexander J. Wulwick, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant.
Shein & Associates, P.C., Syosset, N.Y. (Frank A. Polacco of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Walker, J.), dated May 19, 2014, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"A landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining its property in a safe condition under all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the potential injuries, the burden of avoiding the risk, and the foreseeability of a potential plaintiff's presence on the property" ( Toes v. National Amusements, Inc., 94 A.D.3d 742, 742, 941 N.Y.S.2d 666 ; see Rovegno v. Church of Assumption, 268 A.D.2d 576, 703 N.Y.S.2d 496 ). "However, a landowner has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition which, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous ..., or where the allegedly dangerous condition can be recognized simply as a matter of common sense" ( Rivas–Chirino v. Wildlife Conservation Socy., 64 A.D.3d 556, 557, 883 N.Y.S.2d 552 ; see Bazerman v. Gardall Safe Corp., 203 A.D.2d 56, 57, 609 N.Y.S.2d 610 ).
Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that it maintained its premises in a reasonably safe condition (see Turner v. City of New York, 290 A.D.2d 336, 735 N.Y.S.2d 551 ; Rovegno v. Church of Assumption, 268 A.D.2d at 576, 703 N.Y.S.2d 496 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v. City of
New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
MASTRO, J.P., DICKERSON, AUSTIN and MALTESE, JJ., concur.