| Broodie v Gibco Enters., Ltd. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07930 [67 AD3d 418] |
| November 5, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Jennifer Broodie, Appellant, v Gibco Enterprises, Ltd., etal., Respondents. |
—[*1] Dubow, Smith & Marothy, Bronx (Steven J. Mines of counsel), for Gibco Enterprises, Ltd.,respondent. Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, Valhalla (Jacqueline Mandell of counsel), for T. Rhodes,Inc., respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George D. Salerno, J.), entered on or about June 3,2008, which granted defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff sued to recover damages for injuries resulting from a trip and fall on a single stepthat separated the bar area from the dining area at defendants' restaurant. Since there was noallegation that the step was defective, in ill-repair or was covered with solid or liquid debris, theclaim of negligence had to be predicated on the proposition that the place of the trip and fall wasinherently dangerous because of insufficient lighting in the bar area. New York landowners andlicensed occupiers do owe people on their property a duty of reasonable care to maintain thepremises in a safe condition in order to minimize foreseeable dangers (see Tagle v Jakob,97 NY2d 165, 168 [2001]). However, a court may still afford summary judgment to a landowneror licensed occupier on the ground that the condition complained of by a visitor was both openand obvious and, as a matter of law, not inherently dangerous (see Burke v Canyon Rd. Rest., 60AD3d 558, 559 [2009]).
Here, defendants moved for summary judgment dismissal by showing prima facie that thearea above the step was lit by a recessed lighting fixture in the ceiling, and that the step neitherwas inherently dangerous nor constituted a hidden trap. Indeed, several color photographs in therecord depicted the step as not particularly high, and clearly painted in white and black so as tobe visible even in the low light provided by the recessed ceiling bulb above, and one or moreblack and yellow signs warning "CAUTION WATCH YOUR STEP" were posted in the vicinity.Plaintiff admitted in her deposition testimony that she was able to see the step after she got upfrom the floor.
In opposition to the motions, plaintiff produced no competent admissible evidence toestablish the existence of material issues of fact for trial about the sufficiency of lighting. Undersuch circumstances, her "testimony alone is [*2]insufficient as amatter of law to raise a triable issue of fact on her claim of inadequate lighting" (Branham v Loews Orpheum Cinemas,Inc., 31 AD3d 319, 325 [2006], affd 8 NY3d 931 [2007]), or demonstrate thatthe step was inherently dangerous or constituted a hidden trap (see Burke, 60 AD3d at559). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Nardelli and Moskowitz, JJ.