Rao-Boyle v Alperstein

Rao-Boyle v Alperstein 2007 NY Slip Op 08207 [44 AD3d 1022] October 30, 2007 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Mary Rao-Boyle et al., Appellants,
v
Irma Alperstein, Respondent.

—[*1] Nicolini, Paradise, Ferretti & Sabella, Mineola, N.Y. (John J. Nicolini of counsel), for appellants.

Robert P. Tusa (Shapiro, Beilly, Rosenberg & Aronowitz, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Roy Karlin] of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated August 23, 2006, 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 maintain his or her premises in a reasonably safe manner (see Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233 [1976]). However, he or she has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition, which is not inherently dangerous as a matter of law (see Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]). Here, the defendant established her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the condition complained of was open and obvious, known to the injured plaintiff, and not inherently dangerous (see Errett v Great Neck Park Dist., 40 AD3d 1029 [2007]; Meagher-Cox v Winarski, 32 AD3d 379 [2006]; Capozzi v Huhne, 14 AD3d 474 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.