Terranova v. Staten Island University Hospital
This text of 57 A.D.3d 765 (Terranova v. Staten Island University Hospital) 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.
Opinion
[766]*766A landowner is under no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition, which, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous (see Fitzgerald v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 17 AD3d 522 [2005]; Orlando v Audax Constr. Corp., 14 AD3d 500 [2005]; Capozzi v Huhne, 14 AD3d 474 [2005]; Jang Hee Lee v Sung Whun Oh, 3 AD3d 473 [2004]; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]). Here, the plaintiff allegedly was injured when she tripped on the footrest of a wheelchair in a hospital room. The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the presence of the wheelchair was open and obvious, known to the plaintiff, and not inherently dangerous (see Mastellone v City of New York, 29 AD3d 540 [2006]; Fitzgerald v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 17 AD3d at 522; Weiner v Saks Fifth Ave., 266 AD2d 390 [1999]; Lamia v Federated Dept. Stores, 263 AD2d 498 [1999]; Sewer v Fat Albert’s Warehouse, 235 AD2d 414 [1997]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Spolzino, J.R, Florio, Garni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
57 A.D.3d 765, 870 N.Y.2d 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terranova-v-staten-island-university-hospital-nyappdiv-2008.