From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Summa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Aug 8, 1996
230 A.D.2d 633 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

August 8, 1996


Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered April 11, 1995, which, inter alia, granted defendant-respondent's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed on the ground that it was not foreseeable, as a matter of law, that plaintiff, a telephone installer, would enter the attic from which she fell since defendant home owner was never given any indication that access to that remote area of the house would be required. And, even if plaintiff's entry into the attic was foreseeable, "`[t]here is no duty to warn against a condition which is readily observable'" ( Pepic v Joco Realty, 216 A.D.2d 95, 96, quoting Smith v Curtis Lbr. Co., 183 A.D.2d 1018, 1019). As acknowledged by plaintiff, the unfinished condition of the attic floor was obvious.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin and Kupferman, JJ.


Summaries of

Johnson v. Summa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Aug 8, 1996
230 A.D.2d 633 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Johnson v. Summa

Case Details

Full title:PATRICIA JOHNSON, Appellant, v. PAULA SUMMA, Respondent and Third-Party…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Aug 8, 1996

Citations

230 A.D.2d 633 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
646 N.Y.S.2d 8

Citing Cases

Saintume v. Lamattina

For a court to conclude as a matter of law that a jury verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence, it…

Frank v. Beck Wainwright Holding Corp.

ORDERED that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs. The defendant made a prima facie showing of…