Kraeling v. McDonald-Aaron
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Kraeling v McDonald-Aaron
2026 NY Slip Op 04493
July 22, 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.
Mitchell Kraeling, respondent,
v
Merle McDonald-Aaron, et al., appellants.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 22, 2026
2025-00145, (Index No. 620132/20)
Betsy Barros, J.P.
Valerie Brathwaite Nelson
Barry E. Warhit
Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.
Kevin P. Westerman, Garden City, NY (Richard W. Ashnault of counsel), for appellants.
Gruenberg Kelly Della (Horn Appellate Group, P.C., Brooklyn, NY [Scott T. Horn and Ross S. Friscia], of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Maureen T. Liccione, J.), dated November 25, 2024. The order denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In December 2020, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained on June 29, 2018. The plaintiff, who had been a guest at the defendant Montauk Harborside Resort Motel (hereinafter the motel), alleged that he injured his head when it struck a wall-mounted air conditioning unit located near a doorway to his room. The defendant Merle McDonald-Aaron is the sole owner and manager of the motel. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent in the placement and configuration of the wall-mounted air conditioning unit.
Following discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff opposed. In an order dated November 25, 2024, the Supreme Court denied the motion. The defendants appeal.
The defendants contend that the condition complained of was open and obvious. "Proof that a dangerous condition is open and obvious does not preclude a finding of liability, but instead speaks to the issue of the plaintiff's comparative negligence" (Everett v CMI Servs. Corp., 206 AD3d 620, 621-622 [alteration and internal quotation marks omitted]). "Thus, to obtain summary judgment, a defendant must establish that a condition was both open and obvious and, as a matter of law, was not inherently dangerous" (id. at 622 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
The defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the alleged hazardous condition was both open and obvious and not inherently dangerous as a matter of law (see Timmons v Town of Babylon, 211 AD3d 763, 764-765; Everett v CMI Servs. Corp., 206 AD3d at 622). Additionally, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice thereof (see Steed v MVA Enters., LLC, [*2]136 AD3d 793).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).
BARROS, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Kraeling v. McDonald-Aaron (Kraeling v. McDonald-Aaron) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.