| Mathew v A.J. Richard & Sons |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04215 [84 AD3d 1038] |
| May 17, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Lissyama M. Mathew, Respondent, v A.J. Richard & Sonset al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Sean H. Rooney, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated September 21, 2010, which denied theirmotion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedlysustained as a result of the defendants' negligence. The plaintiff alleges that on May 15, 2008,while inside one of the defendants' stores, she sustained injuries when the lid of a barbecue grill,which was on display on the showroom floor, closed and struck her on the back as she leanedagainst the grill while making a cell phone call. The defendants moved for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint on the ground that the open lid of the barbecue grill was open andobvious and did not constitute a dangerous condition as a matter of law. The Supreme Courtdenied the defendants' motion. We reverse.
While a landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition (seeBasso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 [1976]; Robinson v 206-16 Hollis Ave. Food Corp., 82 AD3d 735 [2011];Gradwohl v Stop & Shop SupermarketCo., LLC, 70 AD3d 634, 636 [2010]), a landowner has no duty to protect or warnagainst an open and obvious condition that is not inherently dangerous (see Tyz v First St.Holding Co., Inc., 78 AD3d 818 [2010]; Weiss v Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist., 70 AD3d 932[2010]). Here, the defendants established that the open lid of the barbecue grill was open andobvious and not inherently dangerous (see Flaim v Hex Food, Inc., 79 AD3d 797 [2010]; Tyz v First St. Holding Co., Inc., 78AD3d 818 [2010]; Weiss v HalfHollow Hills Cent. School Dist., 70 AD3d 932 [2010]; Stern v Costco Wholesale, 63 AD3d1139 [2009]; Bernth v King KullenGrocery Co., Inc., 36 AD3d 844 [2007]; Pirie v Krasinski, 18 AD3d 848, 849 [2005]). In opposition, theplaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants'motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Belen andSgroi, JJ., concur.