From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Callen v. Comsewogue Sch. Dist.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 1, 2012
95 A.D.3d 814 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-05-1

Virginia CALLEN, appellant, v. COMSEWOGUE SCHOOL DISTRICT, respondent.

Jakubowski, Robertson, Maffei, Goldsmith & Tartaglia, LLP, Saint James, N.Y. (James J. Herz and Frank M. Maffei, Jr., of counsel), for appellant. Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP, Smithtown, N.Y. (Diane K. Farrell and Nicholas M. Brino of counsel), for respondent.


Jakubowski, Robertson, Maffei, Goldsmith & Tartaglia, LLP, Saint James, N.Y. (James J. Herz and Frank M. Maffei, Jr., of counsel), for appellant. Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP, Smithtown, N.Y. (Diane K. Farrell and Nicholas M. Brino of counsel), for respondent.

*819 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 October 3, 2011, which 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 tripped over a chain, suspended between two poles, used to block off an access roadway located at Comsewogue High School. At her deposition, the plaintiff testified that the chain hit her at a “high ankle or low shin” level.

The defendant established, prima facie, that the chain was open and obvious, i.e., readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses, and not inherently dangerous ( see Thomas v. Pleasantville Union Free School Dist., 79 A.D.3d 853, 854, 913 N.Y.S.2d 702; Badalbaeva v. City of New York, 55 A.D.3d 764, 765, 866 N.Y.S.2d 322; Siegenfeld v. Long Is. Power Auth., 46 A.D.3d 798, 799, 848 N.Y.S.2d 274; Sun Ho Chung v. Jeong Sook Joh, 29 A.D.3d 677, 678, 815 N.Y.S.2d 641; Plis v. North Bay Cadillac, 5 A.D.3d 578, 773 N.Y.S.2d 451; Cupo v. Karfunkel, 1 A.D.3d 48, 51–52, 767 N.Y.S.2d 40). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see generally 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.

RIVERA, J.P., HALL, LOTT and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Callen v. Comsewogue Sch. Dist.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 1, 2012
95 A.D.3d 814 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Callen v. Comsewogue Sch. Dist.

Case Details

Full title:Virginia CALLEN, appellant, v. COMSEWOGUE SCHOOL DISTRICT, respondent.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: May 1, 2012

Citations

95 A.D.3d 814 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 3397
942 N.Y.S.2d 818

Citing Cases

Sneed v. Fulton Park Four Assocs.

Section 3, Inc., 134 AD3d 776; Barone v Risi, 128 AD3d 874; Varon v New York City Dept. of Educ., 123 AD3d…

Simon v. Comsewogue Sch. Dist.

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the chain was open and obvious given the crowd and…