Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004

Hecht v. 281 Scarsdale Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 26, 2004

3 A.D.3d 551; 770 N.Y.S.2d 643

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Swan v. Eastman Kodak Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Erario v. Wen Shirley, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Heiden v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Lasky v. Daly (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Mareno v. Shorenstein Realty Services, L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Cotto v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Chance v. Gap, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2004)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered August 2, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, as the overhead pipe and valve near the *552wall of the defendants’ parking garage upon which the plaintiff struck his head was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous as a matter of law (see Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003] ; see also Jang Hee Lee v Sung Whun Oh, 3 AD3d 473 [2004]; Gibbons v Lido & Point Lookout Fire Dist., 293 AD2d 646 [2002]; Sorce v Great Oak Mar., 282 AD2d 598 [2001]). Therefore, the defendants had no duty to warn and did not breach their duty to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition (see Cupo v Karfunkel, supra; Gibbons v Lido & Point Lookout Fire Dist., supra; Sorce v Great Oak Mar., supra).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.