Atanasoff v Elmont Union Free School Dist.
2005 NYSlipOp 04164
May 23, 2005
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, July 20, 2005


Stephen Atanasoff, Respondent,
v
Elmont Union Free School District, Appellant.

[*1]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated May 5, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured when he fell attempting to climb through a locked gate located at the rear of the defendant's Gotham Avenue Elementary School property. The gates were fastened together with a chain attached to a metal pole. According to the plaintiff, as he stepped onto the pole's cement base and slid between the gates, he heard a "snapping" sound in his leg and fell to the ground. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that there was a question of fact as to whether the defendant exercised reasonable care in maintaining the gate and fence in a safe condition. We reverse.

The defendant met its prima facie burden of establishing that the condition of the gate was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see DiVietro v Gould Palisades Corp., 4 AD3d 324 [2004]; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]). The gate was chained closed to keep persons from entering the [*2]property and the plaintiff's testimony failed to identify the nature of the allegedly dangerous condition that caused his injury. By his own testimony, the plaintiff was aware of the condition of the gate because he visited and climbed through the gated area many times before (see Jang Hee Lee v Sung Whun Oh, 3 AD3d 473 [2004]; see also Macey v Truman, 70 NY2d 918 [1987]).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Oberstein v Mayfair Super Mkts., 298 AD2d 446 [2002]; see also Tagle v Jakob, 97 NY2d 165 [2001]; Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]). Prudenti, P.J., Schmidt, Luciano and Lifson, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.