| Espinoza v Hemar Supermarket, Inc. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06625 [43 AD3d 855] |
| September 11, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Maria Espinoza, Appellant, v Hemar Supermarket, Inc.,Respondent. |
—[*1] Bruce A. Lawrence, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Mary Frances G. Marino of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated July 17, 2006, which granted thedefendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell over a stack of empty milk crates in the aisle of thedefendant's supermarket after she retrieved a carton of heavy cream from the dairy section. Theplaintiff alleged that the defendant's negligent placement of the empty crates proximately causedher to fall. At the time of the accident, the manager of the dairy department was restocking themilk shelf in the vicinity of the area where the plaintiff fell.
A landowner has a duty to maintain his premises in a reasonably safe manner (see Bassov Miller, 40 NY2d 233 [1976]). However, he has no duty to protect or warn against an openand obvious condition which as a matter of law is not inherently dangerous (see Bernth v King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc.,36 AD3d 844 [2007]; Cupo vKarfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]; Rosa v Food Dynasty, 307 AD2d 1031 [2003]).[*2]
In support of its motion for summary judgment, thedefendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition,the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Bernth v King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc.,supra; Rosa v Food Dynasty, 307 AD2d 1031 [2003]; cf. Palmer v Vitrano, 29 AD3d 656 [2006]; Belogolovkin v 1100-1114 Kings HighwayLLC, 35 AD3d 514 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted thedefendant's motion. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Florio and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.