| Rao-Boyle v Alperstein |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08207 [44 AD3d 1022] |
| October 30, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Mary Rao-Boyle et al., Appellants, v Irma Alperstein,Respondent. |
—[*1] Robert P. Tusa (Shapiro, Beilly, Rosenberg & Aronowitz, LLP, New York, N.Y. [RoyKarlin] of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an orderof the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated August 23, 2006, which granted thedefendant'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 (seeBasso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233 [1976]). However, he or she has no duty to protect or warnagainst 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 herentitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence sufficient to demonstrate thatthe condition complained of was open and obvious, known to the injured plaintiff, and notinherently 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 offact. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.