| Dabnis v West Islip Pub. Lib. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09358 [45 AD3d 802] |
| November 27, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Sophia Dabnis et al., Appellants, v West Islip PublicLibrary, Respondent, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Hammill, O'Brien, Croutier, Dempsey & Pender, P.C., Syosset, N.Y. (Anton Piotroski ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an orderof the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated July 20, 2006, which granted the motionof the defendant West Islip Public Library for summary judgment dismissing the complaintinsofar as asserted against it.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The infant plaintiff, then 1½ years old, was allegedly injured as a result of anunexplained fall while "toddling" in an aisle at the defendant West Islip Public Library(hereinafter the Library). Upon falling, the infant plaintiff struck her head on a fixed metal shelfdivider on a library bookshelf. The infant plaintiff and her mother, the plaintiff Christa Dabnis,commenced this action against the Library, among others, alleging that the Library was negligentin placing a divider with sharp unprotected edges in a section of the library designated forchildren. The Library successfully moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaintinsofar as asserted against it. We affirm.
To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of aduty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and that the breach was aproximate cause of the plaintiff's injury (see Pulka v Edelman, 40 NY2d 781, 782 [1976];Kipybida v Good Samaritan Hosp.,35 AD3d 544, 545 [2006]). Owners and business proprietors have a duty to [*2]maintain their property " 'in a reasonably safe condition in view ofall the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury,and the burden of avoiding the risk' " (Peralta v Henriquez, 100 NY2d 139, 144 [2003],quoting Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 [1976]; see Koppel v Hebrew Academy ofFive Towns, 191 AD2d 415 [1993]).
The Supreme Court properly held that the Library established its prima facie entitlement tojudgment as a matter of law, since its property was in a reasonably safe condition, and it breachedno duty to the infant plaintiff (see Rygelv 8750 Bay Parkway, LLC, 16 AD3d 572 [2005]). There is no contention, or factualsupport for any contention, that the metal dividers were hidden or concealed, or caused the infantplaintiff's fall. Indeed, the plaintiffs failed to elucidate the cause of the infant plaintiff's fall in thefirst instance (see Hennington vEllington, 22 AD3d 721 [2005]; Tejada v Jonas, 17 AD3d 448 [2005]; Burnstein v MandalayCaterers, 306 AD2d 428 [2003]). As such, the plaintiffs, in opposing the motion, failed toraise a triable issue of fact with respect to negligence and proximate cause (see Alvarez vProspect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Rogan v Federated Dept. Stores, 141AD2d 522 [1988]). Schmidt, J.P., Rivera, Florio and Balkin, JJ., concur.