Webber v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Webber v. Miller

17 A.D.3d 352, 793 N.Y.S.2d 105, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3556

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 4, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 352 (Webber v. Miller) 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

Webber v. Miller, 17 A.D.3d 352, 793 N.Y.S.2d 105, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3556 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lifson, J.), dated November 3, 2003, which granted the [353]*353defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was dining at the defendants’ restaurant when he needed to use the bathroom facilities. Believing that the mens’ room was located in the bar area of the establishment, he walked up a few steps and along the side of the bar. Then, in response to asking the bartender for directions, the plaintiff was told that he should go back down the steps and make a left. As he attempted to do so, the plaintiff tripped and fell. The plaintiff contends that the steps were defective and that the restaurant was poorly illuminated, causing him to fall. We disagree.

The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Zuekerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). The steps complained of were both open and obvious, and as a matter of law, were not inherently dangerous (see Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48, 52 [2003]; Gibbons v Lido & Point Lookout Fire Dist., 293 AD2d 646 [2002]). In addition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the adequacy of the lighting within the restaurant. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ritter, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lifson, J.), dated November 3, 2003, which granted the [353]*353defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was dining at the defendants’ restaurant when he needed to use the bathroom facilities. Believing that the mens’ room was located in the bar area of the establishment, he walked up a few steps and along the side of the bar. Then, in response to asking the bartender for directions, the plaintiff was told that he should go back down the steps and make a left. As he attempted to do so, the plaintiff tripped and fell. The plaintiff contends that the steps were defective and that the restaurant was poorly illuminated, causing him to fall. We disagree.

The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Zuekerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). The steps complained of were both open and obvious, and as a matter of law, were not inherently dangerous (see Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48, 52 [2003]; Gibbons v Lido & Point Lookout Fire Dist., 293 AD2d 646 [2002]). In addition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the adequacy of the lighting within the restaurant. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ritter, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 352, 793 N.Y.S.2d 105, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webber-v-miller-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack