Lawless v. LIDL US, LLC

Opinion

Lawless v LIDL US, LLC

2026 NY Slip Op 05297

September 16, 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.

Patricia Lawless, appellant,

v

LIDL US, LLC, etc., et al., respondents.

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

Decided on September 16, 2026

2025-05579, (Index No. 615589/21)

Mark C. Dillon, J.P.

William G. Ford

Helen Voutsinas

James P. McCormack, JJ.

Miller, Montiel & Strano, P.C., Garden City, NY (David M. Strano of counsel), for appellant.

Iaconis Fusco, LLP, Malverne, NY (Joseph P. Fusco 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 (Eileen C. Daly-Sapraicone, J.), dated March 31, 2025. The order granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries that she allegedly sustained when she tripped and fell on a wooden pallet underneath a cardboard display bin of celery inside of the defendants' premises. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, contending that the condition complained of was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. In an order dated March 31, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion. The plaintiff appeals.

"A property owner has a duty to maintain his or her property in a reasonably safe condition" (Torres v La Borinquena HDFC, Inc., 229 AD3d 830, 831; see Kellman v 45 Tiemann Assoc., 87 NY2d 871, 872; Karlin v K. Thompson Foods, LLC, 241 AD3d 525). "However, there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous" (Torres v La Borinquena HDFC, Inc., 229 AD3d at 831; see Cortes v King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc., 210 AD3d 949, 950; Lebron v City of New York, 208 AD3d 656, 657). "'[T]o 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'" (Ferruzzi v Village of Saltaire, 219 AD3d 1310, 1311, quoting Masker v Smith, 188 AD3d 867, 868; see Torres v La Borinquena HDFC, Inc., 229 AD3d at 831).

"'A condition is open and obvious if it is readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses, given the conditions at the time of the accident'" (Torres v La Borinquena HDFC, Inc., 229 AD3d at 831 [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Rider v Manhattan Monster, Inc., 208 AD3d 807, 808). "'The determination of whether an asserted hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances, and whether a condition is not inherently dangerous, or constitutes a reasonably safe environment, depends on the totality of the specific facts of each case'" (Brett v AJ 1086 Assoc., LLC, 189 AD3d 1153, 1154 [*2][alteration omitted], quoting Holmes v Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc., 184 AD3d 811, 811; see Graffino v City of New York, 162 AD3d 990, 991).

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint by showing that the alleged hazardous condition was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Young Min Kim v Jetro Cash & Carry Enters., LLC, 236 AD3d 1090, 1091; Torres v La Borinquena HDFC, Inc., 229 AD3d at 831; Cortes v King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc., 210 AD3d at 950). The evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion established, inter alia, that there was nothing surrounding the pallet, that the area was well lit at the time of the accident, and that the plaintiff was familiar with the area (see e.g. Karlin v K. Thompson Foods, LLC, 241 AD3d at 526). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

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

DILLON, J.P., FORD, VOUTSINAS and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court