Kimbrell v. Greenfield's Mkt. of Bethpage, LLC

Opinion

Kimbrell v Greenfield's Mkt. of Bethpage, LLC

2026 NY Slip Op 04757

July 29, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Randee Kimbrell, appellant,

v

Greenfield's Market of Bethpage, LLC, et al., respondents.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on July 29, 2026

2024-07272, (Index No. 608069/22)

Mark C. Dillon, J.P.

Cheryl E. Chambers

Lillian Wan

Laurence L. Love, JJ.

Dell & Dean, PLLC (Joseph G. Dell and Horn Appellant Group, Brooklyn, NY [Nicholas Bruno, Scott T. Horn, and Andrew J. Fisher], of counsel), for appellant.

Torino & Bernstein, P.C., Mineola, NY (Ellie S. Konstantatos of counsel), for respondents.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (James P. McCormack, J.), dated July 16, 2024. The order granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when a 46-ounce metal can fell onto her head and face from a top shelf in a supermarket aisle as she attempted to remove the can. She thereafter commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion in an order dated July 16, 2024. The plaintiff appeals.

A landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition (see Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 235). A landowner has no duty to protect or warn against a condition that is open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Varon v New York City Dept. of Educ., 123 AD3d 810, 811). Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the cans on the top shelf were open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Caldwell v Pathmark Stores, Inc., 29 AD3d 847; Crawford v Pick Quick Foods, 300 AD2d 431, 431; Ruggiero v Waldbaums Supermarkets, 242 AD2d 268, 269). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Caldwell v Pathmark Stores, Inc., 29 AD3d at 847).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, WAN and LOVE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court