Zhao v. Brookfield Office Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zhao v. Brookfield Office Properties, Inc.

128 A.D.3d 623, 10 N.Y.S.3d 212

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

DecidedMay 28, 2015

Docket15269 101323/12

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 623 (Zhao v. Brookfield Office Properties, 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

Zhao v. Brookfield Office Properties, Inc., 128 A.D.3d 623, 10 N.Y.S.3d 212 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered June 17, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff was injured when she allegedly lost her balance and fell when stepping off a low concrete platform onto a cobblestone-covered surface. Defendants demonstrated that the cobblestone-covered area was an open and obvious condition and was not inherently dangerous (see e.g. Abraido v 2001 Marcus Ave., LLC, 126 AD3d 571 [1st Dept 2015]). Defendants referred to evidence that plaintiff traversed the cobblestone-covered area before the accident and submitted photographs of the area showing its open and obvious nature, demonstrating that it was “readily observable by anyone employing the reasonable use of their senses” (Wachspress v Central Parking Sys. of N.Y., Inc., 111 AD3d 499, 499 [1st Dept 2013]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Her argument that the cobblestones were obscured from view is unpreserved, as it is raised for the first time on appeal, and, in any event, is refuted by the photographic evidence. Concur— Andrias, J.R, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered June 17, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff was injured when she allegedly lost her balance and fell when stepping off a low concrete platform onto a cobblestone-covered surface. Defendants demonstrated that the cobblestone-covered area was an open and obvious condition and was not inherently dangerous (see e.g. Abraido v 2001 Marcus Ave., LLC, 126 AD3d 571 [1st Dept 2015]). Defendants referred to evidence that plaintiff traversed the cobblestone-covered area before the accident and submitted photographs of the area showing its open and obvious nature, demonstrating that it was “readily observable by anyone employing the reasonable use of their senses” (Wachspress v Central Parking Sys. of N.Y., Inc., 111 AD3d 499, 499 [1st Dept 2013]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Her argument that the cobblestones were obscured from view is unpreserved, as it is raised for the first time on appeal, and, in any event, is refuted by the photographic evidence. Concur— Andrias, J.R, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 623, 10 N.Y.S.3d 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zhao-v-brookfield-office-properties-inc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack