Martinez v. Fairfield Hills E., LLC

213 A.D.3d 837, 183 N.Y.S.3d 536, 2023 NY Slip Op 00857
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 15, 2023
DocketIndex No. 618197/18
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 213 A.D.3d 837 (Martinez v. Fairfield Hills E., LLC) 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
Martinez v. Fairfield Hills E., LLC, 213 A.D.3d 837, 183 N.Y.S.3d 536, 2023 NY Slip Op 00857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Martinez v Fairfield Hills E., LLC (2023 NY Slip Op 00857)
Martinez v Fairfield Hills E., LLC
2023 NY Slip Op 00857
Decided on February 15, 2023
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on February 15, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
REINALDO E. RIVERA
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.

2021-08553
(Index No. 618197/18)

[*1]Susan Martinez, appellant,

v

Fairfield Hills East, LLC, et al., respondents.


The Barnes Firm, P.C., Garden City, NY (Martha Pigott and Robert Seigal of counsel), for appellant.

Brody, O'Connor & O'Connor, Northport, NY (Patricia A. O'Connor, Joseph O'Connor, and Thomas O'Connor of counsel), for respondents.



DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Linda J. Kevins, J.), dated October 21, 2021. The order granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On May 31, 2018, the plaintiff allegedly was injured when she fell while descending an exterior step of the defendants' premises. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending, inter alia, that the step was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion. The plaintiff appeals.

"An owner of land has a duty to maintain his [or her] property in a reasonably safe condition" (Locke v Calamit, 175 AD3d 560, 561; see Kellman v 45 Tiemann Assoc., 87 NY2d 871, 872). "However, there is no duty to protect or warn of conditions that are not inherently dangerous and that are readily observable by the reasonable use of one's senses" (Costidis v City of New York, 159 AD3d 871, 871; see Graffino v City of New York, 162 AD3d 990, 991; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48, 52). "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" (Williams v E & R Jamaica Food Corp., 202 AD3d 1028, 1029 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "The determination of [w]hether 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 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the step on which the plaintiff allegedly fell was both open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous (see Masker v Smith, 188 AD3d 867, 868; Fishelson v Kramer Props., LLC, 133 AD3d 706, 707-708; Losciuto v City Univ. of N.Y., 80 AD3d 576, 576-577). At her deposition, the plaintiff testified that, moments before the alleged incident, she had ascended the step without incident. Further, according to the plaintiff, the [*2]alleged incident took place on a sunny day and there was nothing obstructing her view of the step. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Plowden v Stevens Partners, LLC, 45 AD3d 659, 660; Amster v Kromer, 150 AD3d 804, 804-805). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.

DILLON, J.P., RIVERA, MALTESE and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

Liers v. Kohl's Ill., Inc.
2026 NY Slip Op 01192 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026)
Leon v. Nduka
2026 NY Slip Op 01191 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026)
F.S. v. City of New York
2025 NY Slip Op 05836 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Laruccia v. Lewis J. Newton & Sons
2025 NY Slip Op 05510 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Berrick v. 16 Brentwood Rd., LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 04971 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Bowen v. Westchester County Corr. Facility
2025 NY Slip Op 04699 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Naftaliyeva v. Shoprite of Ave. I
2024 NY Slip Op 06207 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Kerr-Inniss v. Williams
2024 NY Slip Op 04309 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Marino v. Shop-Rite Supermarkets, Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 04258 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Catman v. Back Water Grille LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 01223 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
213 A.D.3d 837, 183 N.Y.S.3d 536, 2023 NY Slip Op 00857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-fairfield-hills-e-llc-nyappdiv-2023.