Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007

Kaufmann v. Lerner New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 19, 2007

41 A.D.3d 660; 838 N.Y.S.2d 181

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Smith v. Target Corporation (District Court, N.D. New York 2023)
Nannariello v. Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Gerner v. Shop-Rite of Uniondale, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
JORDAN-PARKER, SHARON v. CITY OF BUFFALO (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Jordan-Parker v. City of Buffalo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Jordan-Parker v. City of Buffalo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Blocker v. Filene's Basement 51-00540 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Guzman v. State of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Carson v. Baldwin Union Free School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Rivas-Chirino v. Wildlife Conservation Society (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Gagliardi v. Walmart Stores, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Salomon v. Prainito (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)

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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated December 13, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. A property owner has a duty to maintain his or her property in a reasonably safe condition (see Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233 [1976]; Fernandez v Edlund, 31 AD3d 601, 602 [2006]; Capozzi v Huhne, 14 AD3d 474 [2005]). Nevertheless, a property owner has “no *661duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition which, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous” (Jang Hee Lee v Sung Whun Oh, 3 AD3d 473, 474 [2004]; see Pirie v Krasinski, 18 AD3d 848, 849 [2005]; Fitzgerald v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 17 AD3d 522, 523 [2005]; Capozzi v Huhne, supra; cf. Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48, 52 [2003]). Here, the defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the placement of a rolling clothing rack inside of a dressing room area corridor was not inherently dangerous and that the plaintiff had observed the clothing rack before her accident, in which she tripped over the clothing rack while attempting to step over its base (see Capozzi v Huhne, supra; Calderon v Nyack Hosp., 293 AD2d 562 [2002]; Chiranky v Marshalls, Inc., 273 AD2d 266 [2000]; Binensztok v Marshall Stores, 228 AD2d 534, 535 [1996]). In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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