| Weiss v Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01478 [70 AD3d 932] |
| February 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Barbara Weiss, Appellant, v Half Hollow Hills CentralSchool District, Respondent. |
—[*1] Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger, Uniondale, N.Y.(Christine Gasser of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an orderof the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated April 24, 2009, which granted thedefendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) a judgment of thesame court entered July 22, 2009, which, upon the order, is in favor of the defendant and againsther.
Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appealtherefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for reviewand have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
The plaintiff alleges that on November 7, 2006, while exiting the defendant's school afterhaving voted, she tripped and fell over a single-step riser separating a landing just outside thedoors of the defendant's school from an abutting sidewalk. The plaintiff had recently traversed,without incident, the riser, which was painted yellow, on her way into the school to vote. Theplaintiff testified at her deposition that just prior to the accident, she was looking "[s]traightahead." The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending thatthe riser was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. The Supreme Court granted themotion. We affirm.
While a landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe manner (seeBasso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233 [1976]), a landowner has no duty to protect or warn againstopen and obvious [*2]conditions that are not inherentlydangerous (see Pipitone v 7-Eleven, Inc., 67 AD3d 879 [2009]; Pirie v Krasinski,18 AD3d 848, 849 [2005]). Here, the defendant established its entitlement to judgment as amatter of law with evidence that the riser, which was painted yellow and highly visible, wasopen and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Bretts v Lincoln Plaza Assoc., Inc.,67 AD3d 943 [2009]; Pipitone v 7-Eleven, Inc., 67 AD3d 879 [2009]; Groon vHerricks Union Free School Dist., 42 AD3d 431 [2007]; Pirie v Krasinski, 18 AD3dat 849).
The evidence presented by the plaintiff in opposition, including the affidavit of her expert,failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324[1986]). Fisher, J.P., Florio, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.