Groon v. Herricks Union Free School District
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Ryan v. Richmond County Yacht Club, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Swanson v. Queens Ball Park Co., LLC (New York Supreme Court, Queens County 2024)
- Nelson v. 40-01 Northern Boulevard Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Weiss v. Half Hollow Hills Central School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Bretts v. Lincoln Plaza Associates, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
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
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
While present on the defendant’s premises to vote in a school budget election, the plaintiff allegedly fell and sustained various personal injuries whe'n she failed to note the existence of a single step in a hallway leading to the gymnasium, where the voting was taking place. The plaintiff acknowledged that she had been looking at a sign on the wall just before approaching the step. The evidence in the record, including photographs taken by the plaintiffs daughter shortly after the accident, revealed that a yellow line had been painted across the top of the step to alert passersby of the height differential and that, also present, to the side, was a short ramp, allowing passersby to circumvent the step altogether. After the plaintiff commenced this action, alleging that the step constituted a defective condition, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
A landowner has a duty to maintain his or her premises in a reasonably safe manner (see Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233 [1976]). However, a landowner has no duty to protect or warn against conditions that are not inherently dangerous and that are readily observable by the reasonable use of one’s senses (see Pirie v Krasinski, 18 AD3d 848, 849 [2005]; Pedersen v Kar, Ltd., 283 AD2d 625, 625-626 [2001]). Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering evidence that the step was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous (see Pirie v Krasinski, supra). The evidence which the plaintiff presented in opposition to the motion, including the affidavit of her engineering expert, failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]). Spolzino, J.E, Krausman, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.