Gagliardi v. Walmart Stores, Inc.

52 A.D.3d 777, 860 N.Y.S.2d 207
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 24, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 52 A.D.3d 777 (Gagliardi v. Walmart Stores, Inc.) 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
Gagliardi v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 52 A.D.3d 777, 860 N.Y.S.2d 207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered April 24, 2007, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe manner (see Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233 [1976]). However, a landowner has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition, which, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous (see Sclafani v Washington Mut., 36 AD3d 682 [2007]; Tenenbaum v Best 21 Ltd., 15 AD3d 646 [2005]; Jang Hee Lee v Sung Whun Oh, 3 AD3d 473 [2004]; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]).

Here, the defendant submitted evidence sufficient to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the box containing an unassembled chest of dresser drawers, which was placed in the aisle of its store and allegedly caused the plaintiffs injuries, was open and obvious, not inherently dangerous, and not a proximate cause of the accident (see Espinoza v Hemar Supermarket, Inc., 43 AD3d 855 [2007]; Kaufmann v Lerner N.Y., Inc., 41 AD3d 660 [2007]; Bernth v King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc., 36 AD3d 844 [2007]; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Lifson, J.P, Miller, Dillon and Eng, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Gerner v. Shop-Rite of Uniondale, Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 2407 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Kane v. Peter M. Moore Constr. Co., Inc.
2016 NY Slip Op 8508 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Blocker v. Filene's Basement 51-00540
126 A.D.3d 744 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Koepke v. Deer Hills Hardware, Inc.
118 A.D.3d 957 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Boyle v. Pottery Barn Outlet
117 A.D.3d 665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Gallub v. Popei's Clam Bar, Ltd., of Deer Park
98 A.D.3d 559 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Pipitone v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
67 A.D.3d 879 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Marchetti v. Modica
65 A.D.3d 1095 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Rivas-Chirino v. Wildlife Conservation Society
64 A.D.3d 556 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Giambruno v. Wilbur F. Breslin Development Corp.
56 A.D.2d 520 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 A.D.3d 777, 860 N.Y.S.2d 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gagliardi-v-walmart-stores-inc-nyappdiv-2008.