Opinion
2012-03-16
Catherine KOVAL, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Edwina MARKLEY, Defendant–Respondent.
Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, Newburgh (Victoria Lightcap of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Appellant. Hiscock & Barclay, LLP, Rochester (Paul A. Sanders of Counsel), for Defendant–Respondent.
Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, Newburgh (Victoria Lightcap of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Appellant. Hiscock & Barclay, LLP, Rochester (Paul A. Sanders of Counsel), for Defendant–Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND LINDLEY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she fell down the basement staircase at defendant's home. Plaintiff used the bathroom in defendant's home upon her arrival, and she returned down the same hallway to use the bathroom several hours later. Although the hallway was dark at that time, plaintiff did not ask defendant where a light switch was located, nor did plaintiff attempt to find one. Plaintiff proceeded to open a door in the hallway to what she believed to be the bathroom, but the door led to the basement stairs. She then entered the doorway and fell down those stairs. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that there were no defects on her property that caused or contributed to plaintiff's injuries and that defendant had no duty to warn plaintiff of the unlit basement staircase. We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted defendant's motion.
Contrary to plaintiff's contention, her conduct in opening the basement door and entering the unlit staircase resulted in an open and obvious danger of which defendant had no duty to warn ( see Tagle v. Jakob, 97 N.Y.2d 165, 169, 737 N.Y.S.2d 331, 763 N.E.2d 107; Duclos v. County of Monroe, 258 A.D.2d 925, 685 N.Y.S.2d 549; cf. Pollack v. Klein, 39 A.D.3d 730, 835 N.Y.S.2d 290). Indeed, plaintiff had used the bathroom earlier during her visit. Moreover, plaintiff recognized that the door to the basement opened in a different manner than the door to the bathroom that she had used earlier, but she failed to turn on any of the available lights in the hallway. We reject plaintiff's further contention that defendant failed to instruct her in a proper manner regarding how to navigate the hallway to the bathroom. There is no evidence in the record that defendant gave any erroneous directions to plaintiff ( cf. Guenzberg v. Heyman, 5 A.D.2d 766, 169 N.Y.S.2d 770, lv. denied 4 N.Y.2d 676, 173 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 149 N.E.2d 538).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.