| Nelson v 40-01 N. Blvd. Corp. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03423 [95 AD3d 851] |
| May 1, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Vitalia C. Nelson, Respondent, v 40-01 NorthernBoulevard Corp. et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Mallilo & Grossman, Flushing, N.Y. (Francesco Pomara, Jr., of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Nahman, J.), entered July 12, 2011, 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 allegedly tripped and fell over a single-step riser while leaving a restaurantowned by the defendants. The step was made of orange-colored tile and stood in contrast to theblack rug located on the floor below the step. The plaintiff had traversed the step, withoutincident, approximately two hours earlier, when she first entered the restaurant. The plaintifftestified at her deposition that, just prior to the accident, she was looking "forward."
While a landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe manner (seeBasso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 [1976]), 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, 819 [2010]; Weiss vHalf Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist., 70 AD3d 932, 933 [2010]; Rivas-Chirino v Wildlife ConservationSocy., 64 AD3d 556 [2009]). Here, the defendants established their prima facieentitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence that the single-step riser wasopen and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Tyz v First St. Holding Co., Inc., 78AD3d at 819; Weiss v Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist., 70 AD3d at 933; Bretts v Lincoln Plaza Assoc., Inc., 67AD3d 943, 944 [2009]; Groon vHerricks Union Free School Dist., 42 AD3d 431, 432 [2007]). In opposition, theplaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez vProspect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should havegranted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.P.,Chambers, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.