| Losciuto v City Univ. of N.Y. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 00195 [80 AD3d 576] |
| January 11, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Jeanette Losciuto, Respondent, v City University of New Yorket al., Appellants. |
—[*1]
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of theSupreme Court, Kings County (Velasquez, J.), dated January 8, 2010, which denied that branch oftheir motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendants'motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she took a step down a three-step staircase separating theupper patio area from the lower patio area of premises owned by the defendants. The plaintiff allegedthat the step was too steep. The defendants moved, inter alia, for summary judgment, contending thatthe condition of the step was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. The Supreme Courtdenied that branch of the motion. We reverse.
While a landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe manner (see Basso vMiller, 40 NY2d 233 [1976]), a landowner has no duty to protect or warn against open andobvious conditions that are not inherently dangerous (see Weiss v Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist., 70 AD3d 932 [2010];Bretts v Lincoln Plaza Assoc., Inc., 67AD3d 943 [2009]; Schwartz vHersh, 50 AD3d 1011 [2008]; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]). Here, the defendantsestablished their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with evidence that the step at issue wasopen and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Russ v Fried, 73 AD3d 1153 [2010]; Pirie v Krasinski, 18 AD3d 848[2005]; Pedersen v Kar, Ltd., 283 AD2d 625 [2001]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed tosubmit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68NY2d 320 [1986]). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the step at issue was not part of a requiredexit because it did not provide a means of egress from the interior of a building to an open exteriorspace (see Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 27-232, 27-375, 27-376).The plaintiff's expert's affidavit was conclusory and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Salerno v Street Retail, Inc., 38 AD3d515 [2007]).[*2]
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted thatbranch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro,J.P., Rivera, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.