| Ramos v Cooper Invs., Inc. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02131 [49 AD3d 623] |
| March 11, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Liwayway Ramos, Appellant, v Cooper Investors, Inc., etal., Respondents. |
—[*1] Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans, Abel, Lurvey, Morrow & Schefer, P.C., New York, N.Y.(Jeffrey J. Imeri of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by herbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated July 31,2006, as granted those branches of the defendants' motion which were for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Cooper Investors, Inc.,Flushing Center, Inc., and Flushing Center, Inc., doing business as Sheraton LaGuardia EastHotel.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff tripped and fell when she failed to notice a curb separating the walkway area infront of the defendants' hotel and an adjacent roadway. After the plaintiff commenced the presentaction, the defendants moved for summary judgment, inter alia, dismissing the complaint insofaras asserted against the defendants Cooper Investors, Inc., Flushing Center, Inc., and FlushingCenter, Inc., doing business as Sheraton LaGuardia East Hotel (hereinafter collectively therespondents). The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the motion which were forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the respondents.
"A landowner has no duty to warn of conditions that are not inherently dangerous and 'thatare readily observable by the reasonable use of one's senses' " (Pirie v Krasinski, 18 AD3d 848,849 [2005], quoting Pedersen v Kar, Ltd., 283 AD2d 625, 625-626 [2001]). Therespondents established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tenderingevidence that the height differential [*2]between the walkway andthe roadway was both open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Pirie vKrasinski, 18 AD3d at 849; Behar vAll Seasons Motor Lodge, 6 AD3d 639 [2004]).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Behar v AllSeasons Motor Lodge, 6 AD3d at 640). Fisher, J.P., Miller, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ.,concur.