Ramos v. Cooper Investors, Inc.

49 A.D.3d 623, 854 N.Y.2d 149
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 11, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 623 (Ramos v. Cooper Investors, Inc.) 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
Ramos v. Cooper Investors, Inc., 49 A.D.3d 623, 854 N.Y.2d 149 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

[624]*624The plaintiff tripped and fell when she failed to notice a curb separating the walkway area in front of the defendants’ hotel and an adjacent roadway. After the plaintiff commenced the present action, the defendants moved for summary judgment, inter alia, dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Cooper Investors, Inc., Flushing Center, Inc., and Flushing Center, Inc., doing business as Sheraton LaGuardia East Hotel (hereinafter collectively the respondents). The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the respondents.

“A landowner has no duty to warn of conditions that are not inherently dangerous and ‘that are readily observable by the reasonable use of one’s senses’ ” (Pirie v Krasinski, 18 AD3d 848, 849 [2005], quoting Pedersen v Kar, Ltd., 283 AD2d 625, 625-626 [2001]). The respondents established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering evidence that the height differential between the walkway and the roadway was both open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Pirie v Krasinski, 18 AD3d at 849; Behar v All Seasons Motor Lodge, 6 AD3d 639 [2004]).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Behar v All Seasons Motor Lodge, 6 AD3d at 640). Fisher, J.P., Miller, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Related

LaPera v. Montana
124 A.D.3d 844 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Fiore v. Deberbieri Associates, Inc.
120 A.D.3d 623 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Kalland v. Hungry Harbor Associates
84 A.D.3d 889 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Loiacono v. Quattro Piu, Inc.
82 A.D.3d 940 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Gonzalez v. New York Racing Ass'n
69 A.D.3d 673 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 A.D.3d 623, 854 N.Y.2d 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramos-v-cooper-investors-inc-nyappdiv-2008.