Caicedo v. Keeley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caicedo v. Keeley

59 A.D.3d 363, 874 N.Y.S.2d 82

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 26, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 59 A.D.3d 363 (Caicedo v. Keeley) 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

Caicedo v. Keeley, 59 A.D.3d 363, 874 N.Y.S.2d 82 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered January 8, 2008, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

Defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law as they failed to make a prima facie showing that the condition complained of was not inherently dangerous (see Salomon v Prainito, 52 AD3d 803, 805 [2008]). An open and obvious hazard may negate the duty to warn, but it does not negate liability in negligence, because an owner still has a duty to ensure that its premises are maintained in a reasonably safe condition (see Westbrook v WR Activities-Cabrera Mkts., 5 AD3d 69 [2004]; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]). Here, there are factual questions as to both legal issues. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Buckley and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered January 8, 2008, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

Defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law as they failed to make a prima facie showing that the condition complained of was not inherently dangerous (see Salomon v Prainito, 52 AD3d 803, 805 [2008]). An open and obvious hazard may negate the duty to warn, but it does not negate liability in negligence, because an owner still has a duty to ensure that its premises are maintained in a reasonably safe condition (see Westbrook v WR Activities-Cabrera Mkts., 5 AD3d 69 [2004]; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]). Here, there are factual questions as to both legal issues. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Buckley and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 363, 874 N.Y.S.2d 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caicedo-v-keeley-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack