| King v 230 Park Owners Corp. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03811 [95 AD3d 1079] |
| May 15, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Natasha King, Respondent, v 230 Park Owners Corp. et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1]
Kenneth A. Wilhelm, New York, N.Y. (Susan R. Nudelman, Barry Liebman, and RoryShectman of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal froman order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated June 16, 2011, whichdenied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A landowner has a duty to maintain his or her premises in a reasonably safe manner (seeBasso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233 [1976]). However, he or she has no duty to protect or warnagainst open and obvious conditions that are not inherently dangerous (see Weiss v Half Hollow Hills Cent.School Dist., 70 AD3d 932, 933 [2010]; Bretts v Lincoln Plaza Assoc., Inc., 67 AD3d 943, 944 [2009]; Murray v Dockside 500 Mar., Inc., 32AD3d 832, 833 [2006]; Cupo vKarfunkel, 1 AD3d 48, 51 [2003]).
Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the condition that allegedly causedthe plaintiff's injuries was open, obvious, and not inherently dangerous (see Cassone v State of New York, 85AD3d 837, 839 [2011]; Beck vBethpage Union Free School Dist., 82 AD3d 1026, 1028 [2011]; Stoppeli v Yacenda, 78 AD3d 815,815-816 [2010]; Mazzarelli v 54 PlusRealty Corp., 54 AD3d 1008 [2008]). "Under these circumstances, it is not necessary toconsider the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers" (Stoppeli v Yacenda, 78AD3d at 816).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint. Angiolillo, J.P., Lott, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.