Opinion
2018–12663 Index No. 1946/13
01-08-2020
Nicole SWINNEY, Appellant, v. Nassau COUNTY, et al., Respondents.
Robert Washuta, P.C., New York, NY, for appellant. Jared A. Kasschau, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert F. Van der Waag and Christi M. Kunzig of counsel), for respondents.
Robert Washuta, P.C., New York, NY, for appellant.
Jared A. Kasschau, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert F. Van der Waag and Christi M. Kunzig of counsel), for respondents.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (James P. McCormack, J.), entered August 9, 2018. The order granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on a piece of wood, which had fallen from a nearby split-rail fence, in the defendants' park. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this personal injury action against the defendants. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff appeals.
A landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition (see Peralta v. Henriquez , 100 N.Y.2d 139, 144, 760 N.Y.S.2d 741, 790 N.E.2d 1170 ; Basso v. Miller , 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 352 N.E.2d 868 ). There is, however, no duty to protect or warn against conditions that are open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Cupo v. Karfunkel , 1 A.D.3d 48, 51, 767 N.Y.S.2d 40 ). Here, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, prima facie, that the wood on the ground was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Ochoa–Hoenes v. Finkelstein , 172 A.D.3d 1080, 1081, 101 N.Y.S.3d 81 ; Ramirez v. Creative Linen House, Inc. , 170 A.D.3d 913, 93 N.Y.S.3d 866 ; Stern v. Costco Wholesale , 63 A.D.3d 1139, 1140, 882 N.Y.S.2d 266 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions.
Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, LEVENTHAL and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.