| Reiss v Ulster County Agric. Socy. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07915 [78 AD3d 679] |
| November 3, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Susan Reiss et al., Appellants, v Ulster County AgriculturalSociety, Respondent. |
—[*1] Havkins Rosenfeld Ritzert & Varriale, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Carla Varriale of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment ofthe Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), entered May 6, 2009, which, upon an order of thesame court dated February 9, 2009, granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissingthe complaint, is in favor of the defendant and against them, dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
On August 3, 2003, at approximately 11:00 p.m., Susan Reiss (hereinafter the injured plaintiff)allegedly sustained injuries when she slipped and fell on the ground at a county fair that was operatedby the defendant on land owned by Ulster County. The injured plaintiff operated concession stands atthe county fair, and had been present for each of the six days of the fair. Rain had fallen for a few daysprior to the date of the incident, had continued on the date of the incident, the last day of the fair, andwas still falling at the time of the incident. The grassy ground of the fairground was muddy and wet. Theprevious day, the injured plaintiff had noticed muddy areas on the fairground, and the defendant hadspread hay on some parts of the fairground, including the area where the injured plaintiff's concessionstands were located, in an effort to soak up some of the moisture.
The defendant established, prima facie, that the wet area upon which the injured plaintiff allegedlyslipped and fell was readily observable by a reasonable use of the injured plaintiff's senses, and that thecondition of the area was not inherently dangerous (see Lawson v OneSource Facility Servs., Inc., 51 AD3d 983, 984[2008]; Ramsey v Mt. Vernon Bd. ofEduc., 32 AD3d 1007 [2006]; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48, 52 [2003]). Further, the injured plaintiffacknowledged, in her deposition testimony, that she knew the fairground area was wet, was aware thatthe defendant had placed hay on areas of the fairground the day before, and that it had been rainingbefore and during the accident (see Ramsey vMt. Vernon Bd. of Educ., 32 AD3d 1007 [2006]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise atriable issue of fact. The plaintiffs' contention, set forth only in the injured plaintiff's affidavit, that thepresence of the hay created the dangerous condition which allegedly caused the injured plaintiff to slipand fall, was speculative (see generally Fordv Domino's Pizza, LLC, 67 AD3d 633 [2009]; Wessels v Service Mdse., 187 AD2d837 [1992]). [*2]Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted thedefendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
In light of the foregoing determination, the parties' remaining contentions have been renderedacademic. Skelos, J.P., Eng, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.