Johnson v. Summa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Summa

230 A.D.2d 633, 646 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8339

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

DecidedAugust 8, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 230 A.D.2d 633 (Johnson v. Summa) 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

Johnson v. Summa, 230 A.D.2d 633, 646 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8339 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered April 11, 1995, which, inter alia, granted defendant-respondent’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed on the ground that it was not foreseeable, as a matter of law, that plaintiff, a telephone installer, would enter the attic from which she fell since defendant home owner was never given any indication that access to that remote area of the house would be required. And, even if plaintiff’s entry into the attic was foreseeable, " '[tjhere is no duty to warn against a condition which is readily observable’ ” (Pepic v Joco Realty, 216 AD2d 95, 96, quoting Smith v Curtis Lbr. Co., 183 AD2d 1018, 1019). As acknowledged by plaintiff, the unfinished condition of the attic floor was obvious.

Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Kupferman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered April 11, 1995, which, inter alia, granted defendant-respondent’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed on the ground that it was not foreseeable, as a matter of law, that plaintiff, a telephone installer, would enter the attic from which she fell since defendant home owner was never given any indication that access to that remote area of the house would be required. And, even if plaintiff’s entry into the attic was foreseeable, " '[tjhere is no duty to warn against a condition which is readily observable’ ” (Pepic v Joco Realty, 216 AD2d 95, 96, quoting Smith v Curtis Lbr. Co., 183 AD2d 1018, 1019). As acknowledged by plaintiff, the unfinished condition of the attic floor was obvious.

Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Kupferman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 A.D.2d 633, 646 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-summa-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack