| DiGeorgio v Morotta |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00446 [47 AD3d 752] |
| January 22, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Marilyn DiGeorgio et al., Appellants, v Michael Morotta etal., Respondents. |
—[*1] Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger, Uniondale, N.Y.(Gregory A. Cascino of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an orderof the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated February 7, 2007, which granted thedefendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidencedemonstrating that the alleged defect, a height differential between the grass and a brick walkwayleading from their driveway to the front door of their house, was readily observable by thereasonable use of the injured plaintiff's senses, and was not inherently dangerous (see Errett v Great Neck Park Dist., 40AD3d 1029 [2007]; Capozzi vHuhne, 14 AD3d 474 [2005]; D'Angelo v DeLucia, 283 AD2d 385 [2001]).Moreover, although the accident occurred in the evening, the evidence demonstrated that thedefendants' outside light was on, and there is no evidence that the injured plaintiff misstepped asthe result of inadequate illumination (seeLeib v Silo Rest., Inc., 26 AD3d 359, 360 [2006]; Curran v Esposito, 308 AD2d428 [2003]; Gordon v New York City Tr. Auth., 267 AD2d 201, 202 [1999]). Theplaintiffs' opposition papers failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the defendants' crossmotion for summary judgment was properly granted. Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Lifson andMcCarthy, JJ., concur.