| Pampillonia v Burducea |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09632 [68 AD3d 1081] |
| December 22, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| John Pampillonia, Respondent, v Mahi Burducea et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Flanzig & Flanzig, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Daniel Flanzig of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from somuch of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated July 7, 2009, as,upon reargument, denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied, upon reargument, the defendants' motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint. In support of their motion, the defendants primarily arguedthat the allegedly dangerous condition which caused the subject accident was open and obvious."Although there is no duty to warn of an open and obvious condition, this principle does notabsolve a landowner of the duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition"(Mooney v Petro, Inc., 51 AD3d 746, 747 [2008]; see Pastore v Town ofHarrison, 57 AD3d 636, 637 [2008]; Ruiz v Hart Elm Corp., 44 AD3d 842, 843[2007]; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48, 51-52 [2003]).
Here, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matterof law because they did not make a showing that they maintained their premises in a reasonablysafe condition (see Salomon v Prainito, 52 AD3d 803, 805 [2008]; Fabish v GardenBay Manor Condominium, 44 AD3d 820 [2007]; Hogan v Baker, 29 AD3d 740[2006]). In light of this determination, we need not examine the sufficiency of the plaintiff'spapers submitted in opposition (see Smalls v AJI Indus., Inc., 10 NY3d 733, 735 [2008];Marshall v Institute for Community Living, Inc., 50 AD3d 975 [2008]; Pabon vNouveau El. Indus., Inc., 49 AD3d 702 [2008]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Sgroi, JJ.,concur.