Bautista v. Supervalu, Inc.

Opinion

Bautista v Supervalu, Inc.

2026 NY Slip Op 05266

September 16, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Yanet R. Bautista, et al., appellants,

v

Supervalu, Inc., et al., respondents.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on September 16, 2026

2024-11523, (Index No. 1172/18)

Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.

Linda Christopher

Barry E. Warhit

Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.

Yankowitz Law Firm, P.C., Great Neck, NY (Steven R. Widom of counsel), for appellants.

Marshall Dennehey, P.C., New York, NY (Diane K. Toner of counsel), for respondents.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Sandra B. Sciortino, J.), dated October 21, 2024. The order granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In May 2016, the plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries they alleged the plaintiff Yanet R. Bautista sustained in June 2015 when she tripped and fell on a wooden pallet in the defendants' store. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint on the ground that the condition complained of was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. The plaintiffs opposed. In an order dated October 21, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion. The plaintiffs appeal.

"An owner of land has a duty to maintain his [or her or their] property in a reasonably safe condition. However, there is no duty to protect or warn against conditions that are not inherently dangerous and that are readily observable by the reasonable use of one's senses" (Martinez v Fairfield Hills E., LLC, 213 AD3d 837, 837 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Locke v Calamit, 175 AD3d 560, 561). "A condition is open and obvious if it is readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses, given the conditions at the time of the accident" (Martinez v Fairfield Hills E., LLC, 213 AD3d at 837 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "The determination of whether an asserted hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances, and whether a condition is not inherently dangerous, or constitutes a reasonably safe environment, depends on the totality of the specific facts of each case" (Laruccia v Lewis J. Newton & Sons, 242 AD3d 854, 855 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Brett v AJ 1086 Assoc., LLC, 189 AD3d 1153, 1154). Photographs of a condition, as well as video surveillance footage, may be used to show that a complained-of condition was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Bouton v City of Newburgh, 113 AD3d 715, 716; Soussi v Gobin, 87 AD3d 580, 581).

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter [*2]of law by showing that the alleged hazardous condition was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Sarab v BJ's Wholesale Club, 174 AD3d 933, 934; Bartholomew v Sears Roebuck & Co., 159 AD3d 786, 787). The evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion, including, inter alia, video surveillance footage established, among other things, that the plaintiff Yanet R. Bautista was familiar with the area, the lighting condition was good at the time she tripped and fell, and the corners of the pallet were clearly marked with arrows. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affirmation of the plaintiffs' expert was speculative, conclusory, and not supported by the record (see Locke v Calamit, 175 AD3d at 561; Bartholomew v Sears Roebuck & Co., 159 AD3d at 787).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.

DUFFY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court