| Groom v Village of Sea Cliff |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04056 [50 AD3d 1094] |
| April 29, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Jackson R. Groom, Appellant, v Village of Sea Cliff et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Morris Duffy Alonso & Faley, New York, N.Y. (Anna J. Ervolina and Andrea M. Alonzo ofcounsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by thebrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), enteredFebruary 8, 2007, as granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff's minor child climbed on to a moss-covered portion of a concrete groin at theSea Cliff Beach and fell. "A landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining [its]property in a safe condition under all of the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury toothers, the seriousness of the potential injuries, the burden of avoiding the risk, and theforeseeability of a potential plaintiff's presence on the property" (Kurshals v ConnetquotCent. School Dist., 227 AD2d 593, 593 [1996]; see Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233[1976]; Doyle v State of New York, 271 AD2d 394 [2000]). However, a landowner hasno duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that is inherent or incidental tothe nature of the property, and that could be reasonably anticipated by those using it (see Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. vTown of Oyster Bay, 40 AD3d 612 [2007]; Stanton v Town of Oyster Bay, 2 AD3d 835 [2003]; Nardi vCrowley Mar. Assoc., 292 AD2d 577 [2002]; see also Mazzola v Mazzola, 16 AD3d 629 [2005]; DeLaurentisv Marx Realty & Improvement, 300 AD2d 343 [2002]; Moriello v Stormville AirportAntique Show & Flea Mkt., 271 AD2d 664 [2000]). Here, the defendants established theirentitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that the allegedly slippery condition of theconcrete groin was open and obvious and inherent or incidental to the [*2]nature of the property and could be reasonably anticipated by thoseusing it (see Progressive NortheasternIns. Co. v Town of Oyster Bay, 40 AD3d 612 [2007]; Stanton v Town of Oyster Bay, 2AD3d 835 [2003]; Nardi v Crowley Mar. Assoc., 292 AD2d 577 [2002]). Inopposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.P., Ritter, Carni and Eng, JJ., concur.