Brown v. Melville Industrial Associates

34 A.D.3d 611, 823 N.Y.S.2d 697
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 21, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 611 (Brown v. Melville Industrial Associates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brown v. Melville Industrial Associates, 34 A.D.3d 611, 823 N.Y.S.2d 697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J), dated July 27, 2005, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The plaintiff Irene Brown allegedly tripped on a rock in a parking lot adjacent to the defendant’s building near a median. The plaintiff claimed she observed the rock, which was approximately the size of a half dollar, after stepping on it.

The defendant made a prima facie showing that the complained-of condition was both open and obvious, i.e., readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses, and not inherently dangerous (see Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]; Sun Ho Chung v Jeong Sook Joh, 29 AD3d 677 [2006]; Webber v Miller, 17 AD3d 352 [2005]; DeLaurentis v Marx Realty & Improvement, 300 AD2d 343 [2002]; Osborne v Village of N. Tarrytown, 180 App Div 224 [1917]; see also Capozzi v Huhne, 14 AD3d 474 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the rock in the parking lot constituted an inherently dangerous condition or whether it was open and obvious (see Misir v Beach Haven Apt. No. 1, Inc., 32 AD3d 1002 [2006]; Capozzi v Huhne, supra; DeLaurentis v Marx Realty & Improvement, supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court improperly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Krausman, J.E, Rivera, Spolzino and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Humphrey v. Starrett City, Inc.
2018 NY Slip Op 5833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Lawrence v. Darden Restaurants, Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 4826 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Scalice v. Braisted
116 A.D.3d 755 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 A.D.3d 611, 823 N.Y.S.2d 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-melville-industrial-associates-nyappdiv-2006.