Germain v. Hegedus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Germain v. Hegedus

289 A.D.2d 443, 735 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12978

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

DecidedDecember 24, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 443 (Germain v. Hegedus) 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

Germain v. Hegedus, 289 A.D.2d 443, 735 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12978 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), entered September 15, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While an owner and occupier of land has a duty to act reasonably to maintain safe conditions in view of all circumstances (see, Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233), there is no duty to protect or warn against a condition that can be readily observed by a reasonable use of one’s senses (see, Moran v County of Dutchess, 237 AD2d 266; Perez v New York City Indus. Dev. Agency, 223 AD2d 628; Zaffiris v O’Loughlin, 184 AD2d 696; cf., Tagle v Ja[444]*444kob, 97 NY2d 165). Here, the defendants established that the plaintiff was aware of a dangerous condition and proceeded at her own peril (see, Tarrazi v 2025 Richmond Ave. Assocs., 260 AD2d 468; Bellofatto v Frengs, 246 AD2d 566). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), entered September 15, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While an owner and occupier of land has a duty to act reasonably to maintain safe conditions in view of all circumstances (see, Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233), there is no duty to protect or warn against a condition that can be readily observed by a reasonable use of one’s senses (see, Moran v County of Dutchess, 237 AD2d 266; Perez v New York City Indus. Dev. Agency, 223 AD2d 628; Zaffiris v O’Loughlin, 184 AD2d 696; cf., Tagle v Ja[444]*444kob, 97 NY2d 165). Here, the defendants established that the plaintiff was aware of a dangerous condition and proceeded at her own peril (see, Tarrazi v 2025 Richmond Ave. Assocs., 260 AD2d 468; Bellofatto v Frengs, 246 AD2d 566). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 443, 735 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/germain-v-hegedus-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack